The Politics Thread

[juppiter]

But is MSNBC actively organizing and promoting Occupy Wall Street rallies, like FoxNews did with Tea Party rallies?

....

no.

That's why MSNBC is liberal-tilted news, and FoxNews is a wing of the Republican party. If only the Democrats didn't suck so much at campaigning and playing the system

[Max]

MSNBC may not be organizing these rallies, but they are certainly promoting them; just everytime I flip my TV to that channel, one of their talking heads is mentioning them. Nor is this just limited to MSNBC: late last week, on the NBC Nightly Snooze with Brian Williams, the very first headline was about these protests. One of the NBC News correspondents mentioned that 37% of Americans support this movement (and acted like this represented an overwhelming number of people), and didn't even bother to mention the percentage of Americans who oppose Occupy Wall Street. (No wonder NBC is Obama's favorite "news" organization.)

Alphanguy, because you are a man of integrity, I have no doubt that you would walk the walk on this matter. What bothers me is those that are in a position to do so--people like Warren Buffett who say they are not paying enough taxes--don't need to wait for the government to raise their taxes; they can feel free to give as much of their income to the government in the form of charitable contributions. (Somehow, I doubt Buffett is doing this.)

As you suggested, I do believe that their is a lot of greed among the rich. However, greed is not the only reason why a wealthy person would oppose high taxes: the other reason has to do with the mixed record of success regarding "big government" programs. (Social Security and Medicare have been effective, but the government's 1960's pledge to eliminate poverty was a failure.) Among those rich people who are not greedy, they would like to have the option to give much of their income to religious or private charities, which they believe would be more effective in helping the poor. (If they had to fork over 60% or more of their income to the government, then they would have much less to give to charity. But if some of these folks believe that government would do a better job than anybody else, they could always make a big charitable contribution to it.)

[alphanguy74]

the thing that irked me, Max.... is that many in the conservative movement were screaming like it was the end of the world when it was suggested that the top tax rate go from 38 percent to 46 percent.... really? Personally, I wouldn't go over 50 percent income tax... but we had rates up in the 60's and 70's in the 50's when the economy was booming. How do conservatives reconcile that fact? I actually am very fiscally conservative...I think the cuts should not go to programs that help people, but waste and the military.

[Max]

I can certainly understand some of your frustrations, Alphanguy. Unlike most conservatives, I believe that there is waste in military spending, so we should cut it. (And the current War on Terror doesn't require the same expensive weaponry that the Cold War did.) However, given that people are living much longer now that they did in 1935, we should also raise the age at which one starts to receive Social Security; IMO, doing so hardly qualifies as "throwing Granny under the bus" (as some liberals have implied).

Edited October 17, 2011 by Max

[alphanguy74]

No problem with that... raise retirement age to 66, and then 67 in 5 years, and then 68 in another 5 years. I also think that if you have investment or working income above 100,000$ a year, then you should get back ONLY what you paid in to SS, and no more. Then if your income falls below that level.... then you would start recieving again.

Edited October 17, 2011 by alphanguy74

[DRW50]

As another gay teenager kills himself, Rick Santorum tries to tell us that he is facing the same bullying, since, you know, SNL (that bastion of pro-gay views) made fun of him.

http://www.americablog.com/2011/10/poor-taste-award-santorum-compares.html

[juppiter]

OK, so they are reporting the news, what is the problem? The situation with Fox and the Tea Party was different; they actively grew the Tea Party and MADE it a story.

[Roman]

Now max, let's call it down the middle. Fox actively promoted the Tea Party for the last year or so. Now, I'm trying to call this down the middle, but Max, if you're going to call out MSNBC, then be fair and call FN out as well. Now, you get on posters who you say are one-sided in their political views, but your statement about MSNBC seems rather one-sided considering you did not mention FN doing the very same thing. All I ask is let's be fair and call it down the middle. there is already enough of this division going on in American politics. All of them need to be held accountable, not just one side or the other.

[Roman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/17/obama-media-coverage-pew_n_1016121.html

[juppiter]

Well, it's not the same thing though. MSNBC reported the OWS story. Fox created the Tea Party story.

[Roman]

I know. I'm just making the point that one side can't be called out while the other side is left unchecked. Plus, MSNBC didn't start covering OWS until three to four weeks later. They had started in mid-Sept., and the only coverage I saw was on HuffPo.

[Max]

MSNBC isn't just reporting the story. Its talking heads--including Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Martin Bashir, and Dylan Ratigan--have been praising this movement.

Roman, you are absolutely right about Fox News promoting the Tea Party. I despise Fox News just as much as MSNBC. Bais in the media has no place, and is equally wrong whether it is conservative or liberal bias.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Max

[Roman]

And Max, those that you named are, IMO, dong somewhat the very same thing as FN, who openly helped and praised the TP, not to mention holding events for them, and defending their actions. This is the right of every American to civil disobedience. The very same things were said about of another group who protested for fair treatment and justice....

The Civil Rights Movement.

But, you did admit FN stinks to high heaven. I applaud you for that.

[GoldenDogs]

And there you go again, Max... PANDERING. You're weak, dude.

Whatever the disagreements I have had in the past with Roman, at least he is intellectually honest and unwaveringly consistent. That much I give him. But you're all over the freakin' map, Max. If you, as the sole "conservative" voice in this forum, represent a more right-leaning point of view here, then those of us who truly lean right are not having that point of view accurately represented.

You dishearten me, sir; you definitely represent what is wrong in politics today - and that is MUSH. Yes, MUSH. Wishy-washy...

[Max]

Brian, I wasn't pandering when I said Fox News had a right-wing bias; that is a simple fact (that most independent voters would acknowledge). Also, I'm not here to represent conservatives or even Republicans; I'm just here to represent my own views. I really am glad you are posting on here, because you are the only one who is a true conservative (and it is good to have diversity in opinion).

I'm sorry, but there is nothing wrong with being the one of the few (perhaps only) voices here whose is neither very conservative nor very liberal in his politics. If a person chooses not to blindly follow a political ideology, that does not make him "weak." Rather, it means that he is capable of thinking for himself, and realizing that some problems need a "liberal" solution while others need a "conservative" solution. (I'm not saying that all conservatives and liberals don't think for themselves, but I can't understand how one could find fault with someone who is not consistently conservative or liberal on every single issue.)

The major reason why this country is so fu*ked up right now is because both political parties are completely beholden to ideologues (and in order to win a presidential nomination, a candidate has to do a massive amount of pandering to the multitude of fringe interest groups that make up the base), and as a result meaningful compromise never happens. Moderates are partly to blame as well, because they almost always act like sissies, while those on the extremes scream and shout. It's unfortunate, but in order to re-establish political relevance, moderates need to be just as aggressive as hard core liberals or conservatives. With all due respect, moderates also have to refute this B.S. notion that they are "mushy" and somehow "lack principles and conviction," which is a line of attack that ideologues have always been hurling their way.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Max