This is crazy. Who do you get your information from? You say you don't watch Fox, but frankly I'm starting to doubt that claim.
Most republican blogs, videos, and articles are all inter-related; they feed off eachother's 'articles' and relative persuasive biased arguments. That isn't to say that the ideology isn't capable of reaching the same conclusions (no matter how ridiculous) independently or using the same fallacies to reach them independently.
No doubt that is true. It would explain why the talking points are so similar. But I'd be happier if I had an answer all the same.
First- I'm not ignoring anybody. I'm just having trouble keeping up with this discussion between work, kids, and life. I'm doing the best I can in the time I have- but I'm primarily on this forum for entertainment because I enjoy the game Elements. this off-topic section is just extra and I'm simply stating my opinions and trying to discuss them with others. I admit I haven't even READ this whole thread yet.
Sure, I understand that you don't have the time. I don't have the time to reply instantly to everything either. But the thing is, it looks to me like you're ignoring me because you're posting talking points that I've already talked about. It would probably be more productive for everyone if you took the time to read before posting, though, even if it means you're even slower. Otherwise, we're going to talk at cross-purposes and people are going to start getting upset. Sorry if I am getting a bit frustrated.
Second- I posted the definition of socialism and then expalined how those various services are not socialist and you blamed me of "picking over definitions" Nobody has given a single explanation as to how police or any of the other services mentioned are socialist. The claim was made, I countered with facts and I get attacked for using facts instead of debating said facts.
Actually this must have been one of the parts of the thread that you missed then - I'll quote myself for you:
You're picking over definitions, which is fine, but I suspect you are applying a double standard to the application of those definitions.
We can have this one of two ways based on your preferred interpretation of "socialist". Either, you can claim that those things (fire, police, military, road-building) are not socialist, in which case you cannot continue to call the public insurance option socialist because it requires about the same level of government intervention and public ownership; alternatively, you can claim that the bill's proposal is socialist because it involves redistribution of wealth to "those who do not deserve it", but you must then accept that these things are socialist as well because they involve redistribution of wealth through taxation in order to fund public projects, the benefits of which accrue to all, even those who did not earn it, and not just the taxpayers.
Why are they different? You are not offering up any convincing argument, and until then you can't have it both ways.
To recap and expand: a lot of people consider a mixed government run under socialist principles to be synonymous with socialism, which is why they are claiming that they are. You appear to be using the stricter definition. However, you have used the word to refer to things which by your own definition are far from socialist. Does that make sense?
Third- I said I have changed my mind and don't think the healthcare proposals are socialist anymore. Isn't that the whole point of discussion/debate in the first place? I found a different model that fits what the healthcare bill represents and now I'm making blind assertations?
The blind assertions refer to the second part of the statement where you say that some things "are NOT" socialist and then offer up a false dichotomy between the two, suggesting that public services are not redistribution of wealth (which they are, as I have explained previously). It's fine that you changed your mind on the definition you want to use, but you've not changed the problem I've identified with your arguments.
I looked at fivethirtyeight. It looks to me like a typical left wing blog not a polling organization.
You should probably look into it rather than just dismissing it out of hand. It is probably the most reliable poll aggregator in the US. The guy who runs it cut his teeth on baseball analysis and then went on to become quite famous as someone who is very very good at prediction based on poll results. It's also a useful site for finding poll results and analysis - remember, statistical analysis done right is independent of political affiliation, regardless of the political conclusions drawn.
I don't understand the point you're making. Since fox covers it more and doesn't attack the protesters with sexual insults (tea baggers) means they are sponsoring it? I don't give a crap Rick Sanchez spent 7 minutes attacking a fox advertisement. His attack on the ad has nothing to do with the Tea Party movement or the healthcare debate. Maybe CNN is upset that Fox is ABSOLUTELY DEMOLISHING them in ratings. (http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/10/02/fox-news-scorching-rivals/#)
Also- media matters is a george soros sponsored liberal smear website like huffington post and really can't be taken serious.
As for infowars, I have heard that guy interviewed before. A total conspiracy nut, but it was an entertaining interview!
Dismissing the sources, but not the claims. I'll explain my point more clearly then, rather on relying on you to read the links I posted.
The 9/12 movement was started and promoted by Glenn Beck. It was heavily promoted by Fox News. The Tea Party movement was heavily promoted by Fox to the point where they started to promote their own events. Fox repeatedly over-reported the number of attendees based on picking and choosing eyewitness estimates. There have been Fox producers caught on tape getting the crowds going. The movement primarily consists of easily-led people who watch Fox, listen to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, and read the Drudge Report, all of whom have been heavily promoting the events with no regard for journalistic detachment. Fox are creating news, not reporting it. I'm not surprised that Fox get more viewers than anyone else - taking the stance that news is entertainment, journalistic integrity and the truth be damned, they're going to appeal more to viewers who don't really care about the minutae of any given situation but are going to pay attention when they are being told things they want to hear. It's a business decision, pure and simple, and it's the reason MSNBC chose to head more sharply leftwards - after seeing how successful Fox was being by aligning itself with a political ideology rather than at least pretending to be objective. Whether or not you watch Fox, they are a major vehicle for the neoconservative agenda, from creating talking points, to distortions, to untruths, and even "grassroots" political movements whole cloth.
That Post article has some good ideas. And neither am I defending the current bill as being the solution to every problem. In fact, I think it is deeply flawed as a method of reform solely because it does not make any actual progress beyond a private insurance system. But it is my belief that a properly constructed bill which would create a public option would be beneficial for the US, and a good start down the road to rejoining the rest of the industrialised world. I'm still not sure why you're opposed to that concept.
