DVDizzy Forum

The_Iceflash wrote:Besides that, what you made sense and I agree with you except for one thing. The double standard you pointed out happens both ways. The left wing sees the right wing as the evil incarnate and vice-versa. No side is immune to the double standard. They both do it. Let's not pretend that only one side is guilty of the double standard or of ignorance or hatred.

That's wrong on two levels.

First of all, it's important to remember that there's no 'left' and 'right' in the US anymore. There's only right-wing and extremely right-wing. There has been no left-wing in politics since at least the establishment of the DLC within the Democratic Party, which took over the party and moved it to the right of the political spectrum. The response of the Republicans was to move to the far, far, far right. There are only a handful of real left-wing politicians and they are marginalized (Kucinich, Wexler, Whitehouse). The same goes for the media. All the big media are trying to copy Fox News, a far-right tv station. The only station that doesn't, is MSNBC, and even *they* have 3 hours of Joe Scarborough every day! (And Chris Matthews, who shilled for Bush and the Republicans until they lost the House in 2006, and then the opportunistic prick flip-flopped to the 'left'.) On talk radio, of course, the right is also king.

Second, no, the 'left' and the 'right' are not the same. You mention extremes on both sides. That may be true. The difference is that, when it comes to the 'right', it's the *extremes* that rule both the Republican Party as the media. Obama, Pelosi and Reid are not radicals. (Despite the right-wing media calling them socialists or communists, which is insane.) They are pragmatists at best, centrist corporatists at worst. And they are supposed to be 'left-wing'? Now, the Republican Party has been hijacked by the Tea Party movement. People like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann and other radicals are leading within the party. Ten Republican Senators want to see Obama's birth certificate! The extreme wing *is* the party there.

When you look at the media, it's no different. I know it has become fashionable to put Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) on the same level as the Fox-people, but it's again a false comparison. You may not agree with Olbermann and Maddow; you may think they're obnoxious; you may point out that they're also part of a big corporate consortium and therefore can't tell 'the truth'; you can point to their constant criticism of everybody right-wing.... that's all legitimate and I may agree on some points. But they're not crazy, like the Fox-people. They have never dreamt up conspiracy theories like Glenn Beck. Not even when Cheney (Bush) was in power. They never made stuff up, like Bill O'Reilly has done. They have never blatantly lied, like Sean Hannity does. They have never called for 'revolution'; they have never organized and orchestrated rallies against the Cheney (Bush) government.

That's the difference. Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh could never do a 'special comment' like Olbermann does, because they always involve sources, statistics, facts, historic parallels, context, analysis etc. The Fox-people don't do those things. They simply put Beck in front of a schoolbord and let him dream up a conspiracy about the "olichary" (without a g) with Obama painted as Lenin in the background.

I know most arguments involving politics tend to revolve around the social issues.

Not to get off-topic, but that's something that's always bothered me. In politics, they play a very clever game (particularly the conservatives) of disgusing their economic stance with popular movements. I say 'particularly the conservatives' because they seem to play the card "You're voting for the Bible, and the golden days, and morals like 'Respecting your mama'" constantly. They're even "the right"! So the mindless hordes are more hesitant towards Democrats because they don't want to vote 'against the Bible.' As if that's even the point. In the end, a lot of people don't consider the economic issues and often end up voting against their own interests.

As for Bill O'Reilly, I really can't stand him. He's just so boisterous and obnoxious. I've watched his show only once, and I never will again. That particular show happened to talk about schools banning the word 'gay' from being searched on the school computers--and he wouldn't even let the opposing view be spoken. He'd interrupt the people he disagreed with, and at the end, he said, "Sorry--I'm right." Ugh. He really reminds me of Nancy Grace in that way--they both are rude and overbearing, and if you disagree with them (on anything) you disappear and are never seen on the show again. Although I would rank Grace above O'Reilly, since I do support some of her views (her show most specifically targets crime, especially child-related) and her heart is in the right place. She's just annoying and rude. (but when she attacked Jon Gosselin--love!)

On another point, a lot of people always say "They believe what they believe and you believe what you believe. That's all there is to it." But at some point, someone has to be wrong. It's just wishy washy to allow people to espouse the most vile, violent bs ever heard and then say noone's wrong. (I'm talking about specific people, not generally about the whole 'Right')

(I also wonder how those Utah [Amish?] villages were raided and the children taken away, and yet people like Fred Phelps get to keep theirs?)