Discussion»Questions»Politics» If I LIMITED myself to right wing talk radio, right wing web sites, and FOX News, how long would it take BEFORE I switched?
I've TRIED to watch/listen to right-wing media, just to try to understand where such people are coming from.
Typically, I last about 5 minutes before the lack of depth just bores me and I move on.
The exception was the night of the 2012 presidential election, when I watched Fox News' coverage of Karl Rove embarassing himself has he predicted (despite all the evidence to the contrary) Romney would win Ohio and ultimately defeat President Obama.
IDK. It's kinda fun to listen to sometimes. I can listen people like Rush and Savage for hours sometimes for no other reason to laugh at the absurdity and ( this might come off as slightly unhinged) make comments back to the radio.
Kinda like how watching some entitled brat have a meltdown is enjoyable at times.
I don't get bored.. I get ANGRY at the LIES. I LOVE political discussion, but you CAN'T discuss a lie. All you can do is call it a LIE.. Look.. I watched you take apart somebody regarding the purported criminality and corruption of Hillary Clinton, using NOTHING but the truth. Do I think that person BELIEVES you now?? No, of course not, because that person thinks you're LYING..
excon
This post was edited by excon at November 5, 2016 9:46 AM MDT
Nahhh.. In OUR system of jurisprudence, to be adjudged as having "broken the law", as you and your friends at FOX just did, takes a whole lot more than simply SAYING it - EVEN if the FBI Director SAYS it.
Good thing you're not running things..
excon
This post was edited by excon at November 5, 2016 10:10 AM MDT
The evidence is all there. None of it circumstantial. It has nothing to do with your strawman of who my news source and friends are.
You can break the law and not be charged or found not guilty. I also have a strong inclination you don't equally apply this same flawed logic to all cases.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 5, 2016 10:51 AM MDT
@Glis -- Have you ALWAYS obeyed the speed limit, come to a full and complete stop at every stop sign, and always signaled when you changed lanes when you drove a car?
If not, I guess you're "a lawbreaker," too. Does that mean you are unfit to run for president and a danger to the republic?
I don't think so.
See, excon, this is why I get bored. Someone says, "HRC broke the law. End of discussion." There's no sense of proportion, or context, or recognition that the far greater threats to our democratic processes are the PERFECTLY LEGAL forms of corruption which are exploited on a bipartisan basis.
It's just gum-flapping in pursuit of "TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRULH COMMIE DEMOCRAPS MUST NOT WIN!"
Yes I am an admitted scofflaw. However, I would be given little pardon if I get caught and my crimes are not on par with the email server problem. She wasn't even tried for it. Let you, me, or anyone in our position commit similar action and see what happens to us. Dude, this isn't a minor infraction. In this day when cyber-security is at zilch and it doesn't take more than a script-kiddie to break into just about any system. That becomes pretty serious. It's not directed at liberals, it's directed at one particular insider. Keep it in perspective. You can't say you are keeping it in any kind of context. Both candidates are dangerous to the position. Even if to different degrees.
OK, if you want to talk about the difference between how the Rich and Powerful are treated under the law, versus the Poor and Powerless, I'm happy to have that discussion. It is certainly a valid issue.
It might even be valid to say HRC was treated with kid gloves by the FBI and Justice Department, and cite that preferential treatment as an example of the larger problem of lack of accountability. But to hammer on HRC's individual transgressions, unless you can establish they were especially harmful, is ignoring the forest for the gnat on the back of the spider on the bark of a small limb of a particular tree.
The following things can be SIMULTANEOUSLY true:
A) HRC behaved extremely unwisely with respect to her e-mail security
B) HRC's negligence did NOT cause significant harm, nor did it rise to the level of an indictable offense
C) There are far more important reasons to be leery of HRC as a presidential candidate
D) Given the available effective alternatives (vote HRC, vote Trump, or vote 3rd party and empower the candidate you like least), voting for HRC may be the best option.
New term to me: skofflaw = freelancer who works for "Freelancer,"-- world's largest freelancing and crowdsourcing marketplace. Would be interested to know what it's like doing that kind of work.
Maybe the reason Hilary got away with using her private email in that way (without any harm occurring) is that no one in the spy industries imagined that she'd be doing it and so didn't go checking. Or maybe she had some kind of special filter built to accept only the senders she wanted. How many other politicians might have been doing the same thing? Is there a reason why using a private email address might be easier or more efficient?
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 6, 2016 5:56 PM MST
In all probability. Never would happen. It would more likely reenforce your positions and push you farther to them. Possibly even to the point of a fault.
Never. Your brain would be turned into an amorphous mass of porridge crisscrossed by a preprogrammed net of electrical impulses rendering you in effect incapable of making informed and intelligent decisions of your own volition.
I listen to all the commentators because I want every angle. What I dislike is that too few thinkers try to look outside the left-right spectrum. And too few realise that Green issues will soon have vital economic impact on almost every business and aspect of life. Those who fail to take this into account will end up going bankrupt.
Listening to right wing shock-jocks is not pleasant - but I try to pick the logical fallacies and false facts. I try to understand why they think as they do, trying to get underneath the stock answers and attitudes. Mostly, I think they lack imagination and empathy - they simply don't know how the other side feels - have no experience of it.
It is tempting to think that most right wingers choose their positions because they are in business or work that relies indirectly on the wealth produced by business. But I am not sure that this is the case.
A lifetime ago I went to a conservative boarding school. All but a few girls carried the right wing views of their parents who were farmers, businessmen, lawyers, medical specialists, and politicians. At school reunions over the years, I discovered that none had changed the opinions imparted in early childhood.
It seems to me that people adhere to political views in much the same way as they do to religious ones. It seems to be an intrinsic part of a sense of identity and social belonging.
My parents were classically liberal and leftist -- and I am too, although not at all happy with the Labour platform and hence a member of the Greens.
Once I've heard the latest views on an issue, for the next 24 hours or so it will be just repetitions and variations of the same, so I switch to something else.
OldSchoolTheSKOSlives 