Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Obama vs. Fox News

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2009 8:14:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I noticed that nobody accepted by debate, though I'm more than sure that some of you have your two cents on the issue. For those of you who haven't heard, basically Obama refused to give Fox News any interviews because they're an overly biased, right-wing news station. I understand his point, but disagree with this course of action. Thoughts?
President of DDO
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2009 8:16:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
He should not have refused the the interview, no matter what his opinion on it was
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2009 8:19:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/13/2009 8:16:49 AM, philosphical wrote:
He should not have refused the the interview, no matter what his opinion on it was

I just said that. And I agree. But you've given no reasoning :)

It's okay... I don't need any help for my debate anyway lol (assuming someone takes it, which I'm betting they won't).
President of DDO
philosphical
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2009 8:25:22 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Well i personally don't think fox news is a biased right wing. I always thought it to be quite the opposite, as with most news shows that tend to give most liberal opinions. However whtat Obama needs to understand, is that EVERY news station is going to be biased, whether he likes it or not. Him saying he won't be interviewed because he believes there is more conservative, just shows his dis-taste in the party. Which of course he is. It doesn't look good to the public eye though seeing such an act of someone un-willing to open themselves to biasedness from both sides.
Your mouths writing checks that your @ss can't cash!
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2009 12:56:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/13/2009 12:53:56 PM, Nags wrote:
Obama's a b1tch. I don't think Fox really cares though. They already have more viewers than the rest of the networks combined: http://tvbythenumbers.com...

And more lies and propaganda.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2009 12:57:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Holy sh1t. The Nation, ie. biggest piece of liberal trash around, is calling Obama "Whiner-in-Chief" for the Fox ordeal amongst other things.
http://www.thenation.com...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2009 1:44:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
He shouldn't have refused an interview, because lets be serious, by refusing to do it, he has just given legitimacy to Fox News and their obvious bias. And yes, there is a bias.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2009 6:54:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/13/2009 12:57:04 PM, Nags wrote:
Holy sh1t. The Nation, ie. biggest piece of liberal trash around, is calling Obama "Whiner-in-Chief" for the Fox ordeal amongst other things.
http://www.thenation.com...

The Nation has been attacking him all over the place. They claim he is not a true liberal. They have a point, he certainly isn't as liberal as Fox News would have you believe...
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 11:34:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
You Americans need some running definitions.

First off, Obama is not a 'liberal.' America has never had a 'liberal' president (unless you forayed into sub-categories of 'classic liberalism' but for the sake of conversation, omit those.) Liberal implies social freedom. Period. That qualification alone rules out the vast majority of the United States government (save Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders, etc. I'll get to these in a moment.) Civil liberties in America are poorly defended, despite what your constitution would say.

As for economic freedom, it can go two diametric directions. Should 'liberty' mean to allow each to define their own economic lives and spend their money as they see fit in an open market, or should 'liberty' protect those in the lower classes from the harsher realities of the economic system?

So, given a slight tweak in the definition, liberalism can be either libertarianism or socialism. America is solidly neo-conservative. It represents conservative and reserved social freedoms; from one's individual and private life to the means with which the government can deal with them. That is to say that the American government believes that it may be allowed to defined who can marry who and who can smoke what, and be allowed to throw one of their citizens on a secret plane, fly them halfway across the world and torture them.

Without giving value judgments, this is the reality of the American system. For good or bad, America is not a liberal country. To employ my favorite graphic representation;

http://www.politicalcompass.org...

This is certainly a very moderate representation of the political spectrum, but it is definitely the best. Almost every American politician can be found in the upper-right quadrant. A few can be found in the bottom to quadrants. Obama is still in the authoritarian center. What seperates him from bush is maybe... an inch. So when FoxNews calls Obama a liberal, they don't seem to realize that they are ideologically much closer to him that most people would believe. It is certainly a case of calling the kettle black.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 11:45:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/14/2009 11:34:21 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
You Americans need some running definitions.

Here we go...

First off, Obama is not a 'liberal.'

Yes he is. It's called 'modern liberalism' or 'progressivism'.

America has never had a 'liberal' president (unless you forayed into sub-categories of 'classic liberalism' but for the sake of conversation, omit those.)

You never gave your definition of 'liberal', so I can't argue this.

Liberal implies social freedom. Period.

Care to explain?

That qualification alone rules out the vast majority of the United States government (save Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders, etc. I'll get to these in a moment.)

You never "got to these".

Civil liberties in America are poorly defended, despite what your constitution would say.

For the most part, I agree.

As for economic freedom, it can go two diametric directions. Should 'liberty' mean to allow each to define their own economic lives and spend their money as they see fit in an open market, or should 'liberty' protect those in the lower classes from the harsher realities of the economic system?

You didn't explain - You asked yourself a question.

So, given a slight tweak in the definition, liberalism can be either libertarianism or socialism.

What...?

America is solidly neo-conservative. It represents conservative and reserved social freedoms; from one's individual and private life to the means with which the government can deal with them. That is to say that the American government believes that it may be allowed to defined who can marry who and who can smoke what, and be allowed to throw one of their citizens on a secret plane, fly them halfway across the world and torture them.

George Bush and John McCain (Republicans) are neo-conservative, Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton (Democrats) are not. You can't label all of America as neo-conservative just because the previous 8 years have been.

Without giving value judgments, this is the reality of the American system. For good or bad, America is not a liberal country. To employ my favorite graphic representation;

http://www.politicalcompass.org...

This is certainly a very moderate representation of the political spectrum, but it is definitely the best. Almost every American politician can be found in the upper-right quadrant. A few can be found in the bottom to quadrants. Obama is still in the authoritarian center. What seperates him from bush is maybe... an inch. So when FoxNews calls Obama a liberal, they don't seem to realize that they are ideologically much closer to him that most people would believe. It is certainly a case of calling the kettle black.

You failed to give "some running definitions" and didn't back up your claims with evidence or proof. Most of what you said was completely wrong.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 12:01:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
MistahKurtz:

In American politics (which is the focus of conversation here), being a liberal candidate means favoring reform or social progress, i.e. adopting a progressive ideology in terms of government. Obviously I'd consider FDR to fall into this category, as he's pretty much the most progressive president we've ever had.

Now, the main focus of modern liberalism in the United States is voting rights for all adult citizens, equal rights, separation of church and state, protection of the environment, and the provision by the government of social services, such as education, health care, and highways, and also food for the hungry and housing for the homeless (Wiki). Yes, some of that falls into the category of social freedom - which you cited as the most important aspect of liberalism - so I fail to see how the hell you can defend that there has been no president in favor of social freedom, when there have been presidents in favor of those things (liberalism).

Also, your suggestion that liberalism can easily be translated as socialism or libertarianism is false. Liberalism in American politics and economics is completely different than Socialism OR Libertarianism. Those are economic ideologeies with political implications; they are not separate. Just because you can't distinguish which economic policy you find to be more liberal in terms of granting freedom doesn't mean that you can apply liberalism to both ideoligies. Of course the correct answer is that people are more free in a capitalistic society than socialist society, but I digress. In that case, you'd define liberal as granting both social and economic freedom. My friend, that is Libertarianism, and there have obviously been those types of candidates (though not presidents) in America, so I guess you're 1/2 right.
President of DDO
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 12:07:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/14/2009 11:45:45 AM, Nags wrote:
Yes he is. It's called 'modern liberalism' or 'progressivism'.

Give me your definition of both of these concepts.

Care to explain?
A liberal social policy implies a respect for personal privacy. That is to say that in a liberal society, the law represents a freedom of privacy and the government must observe it. Unwarranted wiretapping and unsigned search and seizure orders are an absolute negation of liberty. Furthermore, liberalism says that personal choices that bear no effect on anyone but the person should not be legislated. By not recognizing gay marriage, Obama is canceling his label of 'liberal,

That qualification alone rules out the vast majority of the United States government (save Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Bernie Sanders, etc. I'll get to these in a moment.)

You never "got to these".
Right. I meant to, but got side tracked. Using the compass I posted, Ron Paul would be bottom-right (libertarian), while the other three are to varying degrees to the bottom left quadrant (socially liberal and economically statist)

For the most part, I agree.
Then, by my definition, you agree that there's nothing 'liberal' about the U.S at all.

You didn't explain - You asked yourself a question.
It's rhetorical. Depending on who you ask, both can be an accurate definition of economic liberalism.

What...?
It's true. The only thing that separates a libertarian from a social democratic country is economic policy. That being said, that's a -huge- difference, but that's the long, rambling and quasi-off-topic point I'm making.

George Bush and John McCain (Republicans) are neo-conservative, Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton (Democrats) are not. You can't label all of America as neo-conservative just because the previous 8 years have been.
No, don't misunderstand. I'm saying that the vast majority of Congress are neo-cons. George Bush was a staunch, proud neo-con while the Democrats are more left-leaning, but make no mistake; they are neo-conservatives in the world-wide scope of things. They support an infringement of civil rights, preemptive warfare, a government-defined morality, support for corporations, high taxes for most, tax cuts for the rich, etc. They simply support these things to lesser degrees than, say, Bush.

You failed to give "some running definitions" and didn't back up your claims with evidence or proof. Most of what you said was completely wrong.

And you've failed to tell me why it's wrong. You can't back up definitions with proof, they're largely subjective. I've avoided going into great detail because what I'm talking about is just a huge preamble to what I actually mean to say, which is that FoxNews can't tell a liberal from a parked car.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 12:11:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/14/2009 12:01:05 PM, theLwerd wrote:
MistahKurtz:

In American politics (which is the focus of conversation here), being a liberal candidate means favoring reform or social progress, i.e. adopting a progressive ideology in terms of government. Obviously I'd consider FDR to fall into this category, as he's pretty much the most progressive president we've ever had.

Now, the main focus of modern liberalism in the United States is voting rights for all adult citizens, equal rights, separation of church and state, protection of the environment, and the provision by the government of social services, such as education, health care, and highways, and also food for the hungry and housing for the homeless (Wiki). Yes, some of that falls into the category of social freedom - which you cited as the most important aspect of liberalism - so I fail to see how the hell you can defend that there has been no president in favor of social freedom, when there have been presidents in favor of those things (liberalism).

Also, your suggestion that liberalism can easily be translated as socialism or libertarianism is false. Liberalism in American politics and economics is completely different than Socialism OR Libertarianism. Those are economic ideologeies with political implications; they are not separate. Just because you can't distinguish which economic policy you find to be more liberal in terms of granting freedom doesn't mean that you can apply liberalism to both ideoligies. Of course the correct answer is that people are more free in a capitalistic society than socialist society, but I digress. In that case, you'd define liberal as granting both social and economic freedom. My friend, that is Libertarianism, and there have obviously been those types of candidates (though not presidents) in America, so I guess you're 1/2 right.

Ah, well here's our problem. You're operating on solely American definitions, while I'm using largely world-wide ones. To be 'liberal' in the U.S is not to be liberal worldwide, which has been largely understood in the U.S for a long time (progressive and liberal are bizarre insults.) It has not really been until Fox began to use them negatively that this insanity began. They use the word as though it implies socialist, which we know in American politics it does not. 'Liberal' could certainly imply a type of socialism in, say, Norway.

So I won't object to anything that you just said, but I'm merely pointing out that we're talking about two different things.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 12:15:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Sorry to step in here, I don't mean to be an interventionist (ha-ha)....

In response to theLwerd's assertion that providing social and economic freedom is "libertarian," is false.

What libertarianism is is a way to achieve social and economic freedom - not what it is. Liberals also believe in achieving social and economic freedom, but prefer using different methods - usually through the assertion of negative and positive rights, instead of just using negative rights as a libertarian would, or positive rights as a socialist would.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 12:16:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
MistahKurtz:

Nay. Liberalism is the belief in the importance of individual freedom. Socialism never values individual freedom, thereby negating your example of Norway. However, I would tend to agree with you that making liberalism and democratic synonomous is a big mistake in this regard. Also, in no way is Obama being un-liberal by not allowing gay marriage. That is an issue that has nothing to do with individual freedom, but rather the government's recognition of spiritual unions (which I disagree with) and the economic and legal benefits that go with it.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 12:20:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/14/2009 12:15:06 PM, Volkov wrote:
Sorry to step in here, I don't mean to be an interventionist (ha-ha)....

In response to theLwerd's assertion that providing social and economic freedom is "libertarian," is false.

What libertarianism is is a way to achieve social and economic freedom - not what it is. Liberals also believe in achieving social and economic freedom, but prefer using different methods - usually through the assertion of negative and positive rights, instead of just using negative rights as a libertarian would, or positive rights as a socialist would.

Volkov, you're confusing the terms liberalism with democrats. I think MK's point is that liberalism by definition upholds individual freedom. Democrats today are called liberals, but in actuality, that's not what they are. Forcing people to pay taxes to things they don't support is not economic freedom, nor is it a way to achieve economic freedom. I agree that Libertarianism is a way to ACHIEVE freedom, but what you support does not. It's merely your attempt to make things more fair and achieve a better economy or better social standard (not achieve freedom).
President of DDO
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 12:26:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/14/2009 12:07:15 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 10/14/2009 11:45:45 AM, Nags wrote:
Yes he is. It's called 'modern liberalism' or 'progressivism'.

Give me your definition of both of these concepts.

Ugh, can you try Google or Wikipedia - these terms are pretty simple.

Care to explain?
A liberal social policy implies a respect for personal privacy. That is to say that in a liberal society, the law represents a freedom of privacy and the government must observe it. Unwarranted wiretapping and unsigned search and seizure orders are an absolute negation of liberty. Furthermore, liberalism says that personal choices that bear no effect on anyone but the person should not be legislated.

Ok, good.

By not recognizing gay marriage, Obama is canceling his label of 'liberal,

Disagree. He's trying... kinda. Plus, it is much harder to overturn gay marriage on a national level versus a state level.

For the most part, I agree.
Then, by my definition, you agree that there's nothing 'liberal' about the U.S at all.

No.

You didn't explain - You asked yourself a question.
It's rhetorical. Depending on who you ask, both can be an accurate definition of economic liberalism.

Ok...

What...?
It's true. The only thing that separates a libertarian from a social democratic country is economic policy. That being said, that's a -huge- difference, but that's the long, rambling and quasi-off-topic point I'm making.

It's a strech, but I'll take it. I guess. Depends on what kind of Socialism though - ie. Venezuela is not liberal.

George Bush and John McCain (Republicans) are neo-conservative, Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton (Democrats) are not. You can't label all of America as neo-conservative just because the previous 8 years have been.
No, don't misunderstand. I'm saying that the vast majority of Congress are neo-cons. George Bush was a staunch, proud neo-con while the Democrats are more left-leaning, but make no mistake; they are neo-conservatives in the world-wide scope of things. They support an infringement of civil rights, preemptive warfare, a government-defined morality, support for corporations, high taxes for most, tax cuts for the rich, etc. They simply support these things to lesser degrees than, say, Bush.

Modern liberalism.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 12:30:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/14/2009 12:20:44 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Volkov, you're confusing the terms liberalism with democrats. I think MK's point is that liberalism by definition upholds individual freedom. Democrats today are called liberals, but in actuality, that's not what they are. Forcing people to pay taxes to things they don't support is not economic freedom, nor is it a way to achieve economic freedom. I agree that Libertarianism is a way to ACHIEVE freedom, but what you support does not. It's merely your attempt to make things more fair and achieve a better economy or better social standard (not achieve freedom).

I know what Democrats are and are not, but that wasn't my issue. You actually completely by-passed the issue.

Despite your assurances, my idea is not to achieve a better economy or better social standard - I would love those things, but I'm not about to force it on everyone as a socialist or social democrat would.

A liberal like myself believes in achieving freedom - what makes us distinct from libertarians such as yourself, or socialists, or conservatives, is how we do it.

Let Michael Ignatieff explain:

"A liberal's disagreement with a socialist or social democrat comes down to this: we both seek equality, but the only equality a liberal thinks is worth striving for is an equality of freedom
.
A liberal's disagreement with conservatives comes down to this: we both seek freedom, but a liberal believes no one can achieve it alone. There is such a thing as society, and government's purpose is to shape a society in which individual freedom can flourish.

We put freedom first but we are not libertarians. We think that individuals cannot be free without a free society. The institutions that create freedom include, but are not limited to, public education for all, free access to medical care, retirement pensions in old age, assistance for the disabled, public security in our streets and the protections afforded by a sovereign nation state."

http://www.liberal.ca...

So, you see, liberals believe in achieving equality just as much as libertarians do; we just believe it can be done differently, and probably better. Your qualms about taxes and economic regulation mean nothing in the face of this easy logic.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 12:43:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Very well put in your original post, Mistah Kurtz. The only thing I would correct is your characterization of Obama being very similar to Fox and the like. Although they are not far from each other on the diagram you showed, they are quite different. That small difference on the graph represents a great deal of difference.

The rest of your post was spot on, despite what Nags and Lwerd have to say on the matter.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 12:45:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/14/2009 12:26:14 PM, Nags wrote:
No, don't misunderstand. I'm saying that the vast majority of Congress are neo-cons. George Bush was a staunch, proud neo-con while the Democrats are more left-leaning, but make no mistake; they are neo-conservatives in the world-wide scope of things. They support an infringement of civil rights, preemptive warfare, a government-defined morality, support for corporations, high taxes for most, tax cuts for the rich, etc. They simply support these things to lesser degrees than, say, Bush.

Modern liberalism.

That is not modern liberalism, and I am offended for you to say as such.

Modern liberals believe in the enforcement of proper civil rights that promote equality of freedom; war as a last resort; individual-defined morality within a framework of basic human rights; support for businesses that do not abuse their consumers, and punishment for those that do; effective tax schemes and a whole host of other things that Bush lacked, and Obama has yet to show.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 12:51:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/14/2009 12:45:39 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/14/2009 12:26:14 PM, Nags wrote:
No, don't misunderstand. I'm saying that the vast majority of Congress are neo-cons. George Bush was a staunch, proud neo-con while the Democrats are more left-leaning, but make no mistake; they are neo-conservatives in the world-wide scope of things. They support an infringement of civil rights, preemptive warfare, a government-defined morality, support for corporations, high taxes for most, tax cuts for the rich, etc. They simply support these things to lesser degrees than, say, Bush.

Modern liberalism.

That is not modern liberalism, and I am offended for you to say as such.

Modern liberals believe in the enforcement of proper civil rights that promote equality of freedom; war as a last resort; individual-defined morality within a framework of basic human rights; support for businesses that do not abuse their consumers, and punishment for those that do; effective tax schemes and a whole host of other things that Bush lacked, and Obama has yet to show.

Sorry, that was my B. I misread or misinterpreted MistahKurtz. I apologize once again - and thanks to Volkov for correcting me.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 12:54:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/14/2009 12:16:07 PM, theLwerd wrote:
MistahKurtz:

Nay. Liberalism is the belief in the importance of individual freedom. Socialism never values individual freedom, thereby negating your example of Norway. However, I would tend to agree with you that making liberalism and democratic synonomous is a big mistake in this regard. Also, in no way is Obama being un-liberal by not allowing gay marriage. That is an issue that has nothing to do with individual freedom, but rather the government's recognition of spiritual unions (which I disagree with) and the economic and legal benefits that go with it.

It certainly is not true that Socialism never values individual freedom... What gives you this idea?

The more moderate versions of Socialism, like Social Democracy, do indeed value individual freedom - especially on social issues.

What Kurtz is saying is that liberal and conservative (as the modern definition has it) are labels for social issues. Socialism and Libertarian are economic labels. Using the labels as such, it is certainly possible for someone to be both Socialist and Liberal; or both Libertarian and Liberal. Conversely, it is also possible to be both Socialist and Conservative; or Libertarian and Conservative.

So for Liberals on social issues we have Liberal/Socialist and Liberal/Libertarian. Liberal Socialists, often called 'Left Libertarians' or 'Libertarian-Socialism'. These ideologies emphasize economic regulations as a protection of the people or the worker from exploitation by the wealthy elite.
A Liberal/Libertarian would be a minarchist or an anarchist. The ideology here being that economic and social freedoms should both be as high as possible.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 3:13:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/14/2009 12:16:07 PM, theLwerd wrote:
MistahKurtz:

Nay. Liberalism is the belief in the importance of individual freedom. Socialism never values individual freedom, thereby negating your example of Norway. However, I would tend to agree with you that making liberalism and democratic synonomous is a big mistake in this regard. Also, in no way is Obama being un-liberal by not allowing gay marriage. That is an issue that has nothing to do with individual freedom, but rather the government's recognition of spiritual unions (which I disagree with) and the economic and legal benefits that go with it.

Well in a purely social sphere, Norway is probably the -most- free country in the world. We should get a sense of what kind of socialism we're talking about first. Naturally I do mean democratic socialism rather than marxism, maoism or the like. JBlake hits the nail on the head as far as this goes.

It could be said that any economic system is just providing the means through which people can be free. While I realize that not everyone agrees with this, I would argue that, directly or otherwise, it is quite true. Capitalism was never established so that some may amass most of the wealth, it was intended to give everyone a shot at their fair slice. What democratic socialism does is try to ensure that everyone has a slice, even if it means that the biggest slices are smaller. This aims to ensure that nobody is oppressed by the horrors of poverty.

At 10/14/2009 12:26:14 PM, Nags wrote:
Ugh, can you try Google or Wikipedia - these terms are pretty simple.

You've complained that I did not provide atequite definitions, then you get irked when I ask for some from you?

Disagree. He's trying... kinda. Plus, it is much harder to overturn gay marriage on a national level versus a state level.

He has said repeatedly that he does not support gay marriage. If someone valued civil liberties, they would say "I don't support it nor oppose it because it's not my business, therefore I'm enacting legislation to ban discrimination of gays from getting married."

No.

Point to me the liberal parts of America.

It's a strech, but I'll take it. I guess. Depends on what kind of Socialism though - ie. Venezuela is not liberal.

Right. For the sake of everything I'm arguing, socialism is just shorthand for democratic socialism. Venezuela would not be a good example.

Modern liberalism.
Yeah, see Volkov's post.

At 10/14/2009 12:43:55 PM, JBlake wrote:
Very well put in your original post, Mistah Kurtz. The only thing I would correct is your characterization of Obama being very similar to Fox and the like. Although they are not far from each other on the diagram you showed, they are quite different. That small difference on the graph represents a great deal of difference.

The rest of your post was spot on, despite what Nags and Lwerd have to say on the matter.

Well I never said 'very similar.' The difference between their ideologies are marginal. Both oppose gay marriage, but Obama opposes a national ban. Both are somewhere in the middle on abortion (that is, neither are actively trying to turn over Roe v. Wade.) Both support the Afghan mission, both support getting the job done in Iraq, etc. Make no mistake, I agree that Obama is closer to liberalism, but he misses the mark on many, many issues.

At 10/14/2009 12:54:55 PM, JBlake wrote:
What Kurtz is saying is that liberal and conservative (as the modern definition has it) are labels for social issues. Socialism and Libertarian are economic labels. Using the labels as such, it is certainly possible for someone to be both Socialist and Liberal; or both Libertarian and Liberal. Conversely, it is also possible to be both Socialist and Conservative; or Libertarian and Conservative.

Well you've misunderstood some of my labels. I have always used 'economically' or 'socially' liberal/conservative (or meant to.) They are merely like positives or negatives on the political compass. That is to say that if one is economically and socially liberal, they are likely a socialist. If they are economically conservative and socially liberal, they are a libertarian. It should be noted that there are some definitions here I'm purposefully not getting into.

So for Liberals on social issues we have Liberal/Socialist and Liberal/Libertarian. Liberal Socialists, often called 'Left Libertarians' or 'Libertarian-Socialism'. These ideologies emphasize economic regulations as a protection of the people or the worker from exploitation by the wealthy elite.
A Liberal/Libertarian would be a minarchist or an anarchist. The ideology here being that economic and social freedoms should both be as high as possible.

We're using different words to describe the same things. I totally do not want to get into the fringe and specific elements of each denomination, the clashing definitions are already giving me a headache.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2009 7:31:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/13/2009 8:14:30 AM, theLwerd wrote:
I noticed that nobody accepted by debate, though I'm more than sure that some of you have your two cents on the issue. For those of you who haven't heard, basically Obama refused to give Fox News any interviews because they're an overly biased, right-wing news station. I understand his point, but disagree with this course of action. Thoughts?

I think he has his reasons, because he knows they will have the spinmisters on after him. I think he should be bigger as a president though. Don't just make speeches in front of your constituents ,what other presidents due when they want to keep their approval ratings up.
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2009 7:58:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The Nation has been attacking him all over the place. They claim he is not a true liberal. They have a point, he certainly isn't as liberal as Fox News would have you believe...

He actually is as liberal, he's just taking a road a lot of excellent presidents have taken in governing slightly right of center.

Not that I support much of what he's done, I'm just pointing out what he is vs what he is doing.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
johngriswald
Posts: 1,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2009 8:08:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Furthermore I think the president has better things to do than to be giving canned answers to any news network be it fox or cnn or msnbc or whatever. Essentially the president is a figure-head. The major news networks should be more concerned on interviewing our senators and representatives and pinning them down for caving to special interests and secretly inscribed benefits for their homestate in deciding crucial issues such as national healthcare. Instead of National Health Care being determined on what would actually be best for this company it comes into a big game of politics that say if I get x amount of dollars for my state I'll vote. Or if you vote for me i'll vote for you, or if i support/not support it will i get elected?

Its pure politics instead of what it should be about, what most benefits the country. That's why the bill is 2000 some pages because of all the crap inscribed in it. Our news networks are failing to ask the hard questions that need to be asked about certain pork barrel projects in the bills.

Also we should elect our senators and representatives by a nationwide vote instead of statewide. This will prevent senators from caving to election pressures and special funds for their states and will make them vote for what makes the most sense.
Having problems with the fans site? Suggestions? Can't log in? Forgot your password? Want to be an editor and write opinion pieces? PM Me and I'll get it sorted out.

ddofans.com
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2009 10:47:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Fox did manage to get an interview with Obama. Yay!
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.