Universal Healthcare

Remove all ads!

Go get yourself a basic Sam Adams porter. Their Dunkelweizen isn't bad, either. The second-best porter I've ever had* was a Bert Grant -- an American Micro-brewery. Unfortunately, they discontinued the line.

* Admittedly, the best porter I've ever had was a Corsendonk.



[And this couldn't be a PM or properly put in the beer thread because . . . ? - dmc]
It would have, but I hadn't yet read page 31 when I made this post. I'm not in the habit of intentionally snubbing moderators, you know. - Drew

 

That's probably because he is. Claiming he and his FreedomWorks aren't is denying reality. It's whether or not they're in the pocket of the HC industry that's the issue.

Well, since you've admitted there's no 'conclusive proof', I'll say 'proving' it to anyone. Your suspicions are fine. We probably all have suspicions about large organizations and powerful people we disagree with, be it the DNC, RNC, PETA, NRA, Obama, or Dick Armey. Making absolute claims based on those suspicions is... less so.

 

I think this parsing where information comes from is basically a quest to search for a excuse to dismiss information to avoid dissonance, but I already said that.

Personally I find the funding links between tea parties and industry and lobbyists very conclusive, even more since iirc one of those lobbyists frankly admitted to that fact in a Rachel Maddow Interview. Declining to name his sources of funding he admitted to 'astroturfing', basically saying: 'It's legal, so what?' Why should I not believe them?

That is to specifically say that you didn't score a point. I rather think that Chandos, probably in error, conceded too much ground to you.

I have already said that this funding doesn't account for the tea party movement, but that it sure set the tone for events. That was palpable during those healthcare town hall meetings. It is known that lobbyists then provided 'protest equipment' for free, or organised and paid for bus shuttles. I already linked to information about all the points I addressed in this post. I'll leave it at that in an effort to cut down redundant efforts.

It is frankly idiotic to dismiss this all as inconclusive because Rachel Maddow (or someone else you don't trust) reports it - and she's a well known Liberal! Thus she is biased!

 

... it is just as idiotic to trust a reporter to be 100% factual and to not have an agenda. We should view anything we see and hear with some degree of scepticism.

 

The problem here is that Rachael Maddow actually is a liberal, and on many liberal issues actually is biased. She is, in many ways, the liberal equivalent of someone like Bill O'Reilly. (Well, that's not 100% true, Keith Olbermann is the liberal equivalent. But she's pretty darn close.)

While I feel that a lot of the news reported on MSNBC.com is pretty good, the news that airs on MSNBC TV is horribly slanted in most cases. That's fine if that's what you want to hear, just as it's fine if you watch FOX News if that's your thing, but the over-riding point here, is that it's reasonable to doubt that Maddow is an impartial source simply because of who she is and who she works for.

EDIT: And keep in mind this is coming from somone who actually LIKES Maddow and watches her show somewhat frequently.

 

Does that mean what she says, however slanted it may be, is factually wrong or not credible because of that?

Point is that despite the slant there is substance to what she says, else the GOPers would be all over her for distorting and whatnot. They aren't. Rest assured they would if they could.

To say that it is not 'conclusive proof' because Maddow is slanted is, as I said, silly. FOX is slanted, that doesn't mean that all their facts are wrong. The links Maddow reports on exist. The influence she describes is a reality. That doesn't mean lobbies = tea party, but that indeed lobbies play a role in the tea parties. That's neither an offensive nor a particularly daring statement to make.

 

You're right - it's not offensive nor daring to say that, but that's not the part I was responding to in my initial post, when you said:

While it is true that you should not dismiss ALL of it as inconclusive just because it's Maddow reporting on it, it is certainly NOT "idiotic" to take everything she says with a grain - or sometimes a pound - of salt. The same holds true for the likes of O'Reilly on the other side. A healthy degree of skepticism is in order when you listen to any of these people, irrespective of their political leanings.

EDIT: For example, assume I see the same news report, one from Fox News, one from MSNBC, and one from CNN. While all will have some degree of bias one way or the other, I'm most likely to view CNN as the least biased of the three.

Does that mean the other two are completely fradulent? Of course not. But I'm likely to be less persuaded if it's a liberal issue and only MSNBC is emphasizing certain parts of the story, for example.

 

It's not an admission, regardless of what you would like to think. I don't claim, at least at the moment, that the TP was "in the pocket of the HC industry." Those are your words not mine. Remember? You apologized for making that error already. If anything it proves that you still are not reading my posts correctly.

As I already claimed, I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone, at least not here. I already have three kids and I don't need another one.

As I already commented, I don't see the world in black and white, but see shades of gray. As I commented, there is the suspicion, which mutes the credibility of the the TP, at least for me.

If that's how you see things fine. But please don't try to speak for me, because those are certainly not my feelings or thoughts. You have done this before using this "We all think" line of BS.

Not really. The issue is that Armey is a corporate lobbyist, who is the leader of a political movement. Here's a term for you to define: Conflict of interest. You tell me why Armey was canned.

That's because the TP is very diverse. You will find people in the TP who despise corporate influence as much as I do. Certainly there is corporate influence within the movement, just as there is in the Dems and Repubs.

I'm still at heart a Nader Raider, which was for libs, what the TP is for cons. In the end it will prove to be just as self-defeating for cons, as it was for us. This is already evident to a small degree with Rand Paul. The Republican establishment has already been shaken by the TP movement, more so than the Dems. That's my real interest in the TP.

 

NOG's right, Chandos -- it's a valid generalization. You've expressed "suspicions" about the Republican party, the tea partiers, swift boat ... I could go back through your posts and find more, but I'm too lazy. But if your beliefs are based on absolute fact then obviously I'm wrong (not about the lazy part, though -- I'm pretty sure about that).

 

Not for me. Sorry, I didn't see it as a "generalization" but that it somehow indicated my thoughts or feelings, which would be an error. As I said, I don't need him, nor anyone else for that matter, to speak for me.

Now, you are going to speak for me too? My, there are a lot of Chandos' on this board suddenly.

I don't have "susupicions" about them. I have different feelings and thoughts regarding each of them, just as I do the Dems. If you are saying that I see some of them as "political adversaries," that would be correct, at least in many instances. But do be honest, you need to add some clarity to your point, T2.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Maybe I have not had enough coffee yet this morning.

 

"Suspicions" is a pretty nebulous term, which is why I put it in quotations. The general use for the term when I've seen it is close to "a lack of trust", meaning that we don't exactly trust a group to be open and honest about what they are doing. "Suspicions" also indicates a lack of evidence of wrongdoing. Using that definition I would restate NOG's original comment as:

We probably all know of large organizations and powerful people we (as individuals) do not trust and do not agree with their methods or philosophies; be it the DNC, RNC, PETA, NRA, Obama, or Dick Armey.

I would also add FOX, neo-cons, MSNBC, etc.. This lack of trust generally come from conflicting core beliefs we have but may occasionally be based on verifiable fact of wrongdoing (which is different than verifiable fact they simply don't follow our particular value system).

I would put ENRON in the verifiable fact of wrongdoing category (and a valid reason we would not trust them) -- in the case of ENRON, "suspicions" would not be valid and the lack of trust would be based on factual evidence.

 

Well, I think a lack of trust would bea pretty accurate assessment. But what is critical is that "lack of trust" is within a context. Or, one can ask, how credible is the TP on the issue of HC? In this instance, we are placing the lack of trust, regardng the TP, within the context of health care. And corporate infuence would be factor regarding that trust, or lack of it. To say we "generally" don't trust anyone or group that is rich and/or powerful is really a meaningless statement.

Also, I often agree with the Dems, but on some issues I still don't trust them. The whole notion that we "agree" with a group within this context is loading the statement. Read: "You don't trust them, because you don't agree with them." Sorry, I'm not falling into that rhetorical trap.

Here's a good example:

Who else worked for DLA Piper? Conflict of interest? You bet. Does that make me suspicious? You bet. Do I agree with the Dems? On a variety of issues, yes. But not on everything.

That's what I mean by "I don't see this as black or white;" it's much more complicated than, Dem vs Repub, lib vs con, socialism vs capitalsim, Rachel vs Armey, whatever. I don't see the issue that way.

 

Chandos, you asked 'who'. I just answered. In the very next sentence I, once again, said your suspicions are reasonable. Maybe you should be reading my posts more carefully.

T2 has responded to that plenty, but yes, it was definitely a generalization.

I'm not too familiar with the Nader Raiders, but I suspect part of the problem the Reps are having with the Tea Party is that it isn't a Rep group. It's conservative, but it seems to be as much Libertarian as Republican in terms of what they protest for. Remember, Rand Paul's father was a Libertarian before he was a Republican.

 

On facts - and slant, and its benefits

The virtue of facts is that they can be verified. Armey and Freedomworks did organise and support (just look at that domain name) tea party activities on health care. To call that inconclusive is ludicrous. Frank Luntz, the renowned GOP pollster, polled terms, and prepared and spread talking points on health care to the GOP [PDF] - which then curiously were used extensively on the tea party rallies and in health care town hall meetings. Inconclusive? These are all facts, and these facts remain facts irrespective of Bill O'Reilly reporting them (he didn't) or Rachel Maddow doing that (she does, with gusto) - they can be verified.

What to make of this is another matter. One can argue about the extent to which this had an impact because this are judgements - but we cannot deny the facts only because ... Rachel Maddow reported them. Selective reporting aside, it's generally the opinion part that generates the slant. That means that while slant is as much a thing that has to considered when examining information, it is also a thing that greatly sharpens the view. One can live with that, it even has the potential benefit to broaden horizons if one is willing to open one's mind.

One off-topic but very graphic example are Voter ID laws:

And here ends the excursion: Slanted media and selective reporting are of course more focused on the wrongdoing of their ideological opponents - that applies to liberals and the conservatives media alike. FOX is obviously slanted, serving their audience. So those liberals are slanted, too? Surprise! If I punch a person in the face (as in passing legislation that aims on hobbling the opposing party) his response will likely be 'slanted' by some inexplicable (not) dislike and outrage. Slant is natural, in particular when politics have become as partisan as they are in contemporary America - but it does not provide a reason to dismiss inconvenient information

American debate has degraded into a partisan he-said, she said mess. Facts don't matter. Judging by the ludicrous assertions of inconclusiveness I encountered here, I dare say people are carefully filtering what they want to hear, superficially based on 'trust' in a source. That's nonsense. This isn't about trust. It's about sympathetic messaging: Maddow is reporting on Republican malfeasance again? Typically ... these Liberals always do that. Aha. Right ...

 

Good. Please don't apply your "generalizations" to me.

Libertarians are not really "conservatives." They are both liberal and conservative (sort of):

Hence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_chart

http://www.lp.org/platform

 

Oh, I know that. But it was also a good starting point for my post

 

Oh yes, I know that. I wasn't implying that the Tea Party included all Libertarians, just like it doesn't include all Republicans. So far it seems firmly rooted in fiscal conservatism (a more Republican position embraced by many Libertarians) and states' rights/small government (a more Libertarian position embraced by many Republicans). So far, it seems to have stayed out of social issues as a whole, so whether they'd take the social conservative Republican stance or the socially liberal Libertarian stance is unknown (and personally I hope it stays that way).

 

Oh, yes, libertarians are for personal freedom, so you will not find them embracing many socially conservative issues. Also, unlike Repbulcians (and some Dixiecrats), they are opposed to military intervention, so you will not find the "just send the fleet," mentality among them either.