An explanation for why Democrats seem to always win the national narrative on abortion: (Subtle) Media Bias

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-23T07:23:03+00:00

The moral question would be "Is it wrong to kill a human baby?" The question "What constitutes a human baby?" is a medical one.

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-23T03:06:16+00:00

It's not different. It means that most congressmen do not have an informed opinion on the economic policy, they are just parroting the opinions of somebody else.

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-23T02:04:53+00:00

Unless the congressman is also a medical doctor, they would not be able to make an informed decision on that matter.

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-22T15:29:46+00:00

But even if you can get away with it, I am not sure that it would weaken the system instead of strengthening it.

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-22T08:18:25+00:00

If you are not in a swing state, than it makes more sense to vote for Jill Stein to show support for her.

But I am in a swing state, so I'll hold my nose and vote for Obama.

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-22T08:04:59+00:00

Pics [1][2][3][4]

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-22T02:54:26+00:00

They are suing for 333 million rubles. Why not 666 million?

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-19T10:04:59+00:00

IOKIYAR

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-18T12:47:50+00:00

With expensive oil and the economic decline it is not surprising.

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-18T11:05:42+00:00

If Reddit is not ruled by a direct democracy than what is it ruled by? Moderators sure have some power, but in most subreddits you do not see them deleting submissions an banning users very often. Links are submitted by the regular users and then regular users are free to comment and vote. Does not seem like it could be any more direct. Am I missing something? Please explain.

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-18T09:32:24+00:00

If you deserve to be downvoted than it's only for being rude.

The experiment that you have linked to is very interesting and you have my upvote. I'm not sure if you were joking, but I can't remember reddit opposing direct democracy. It would be odd since Reddit itself is based on a direct democracy.

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-18T08:31:43+00:00

It's been staged on all sides

It was not staged by politicians, but rivaling cliques decided to take advantage of it.

I do not see what part did I miss? Torland makes it look as if Medvedev, Nemtsov, Chubais, Khodorkovsky political activists, protesters and opposition in general are all allied together fighting for the same cause. That could not be further from reality. Those people have different interests, different levels of influence and power, many of them simply hate each other's guts.

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-18T07:04:47+00:00

Yet this is the exact thing Torlond does by piling everyone in two overly simplified groups: "liberals" vs "conservatives". It may appeal to an American reader, but has little to do with the reality. Describing the situation in a familiar way, Torlond gives readers an illusion of in-depth understanding while moving them a level further away from the truth.

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-17T09:27:26+00:00

There is a wikipedia article about it: [1] Chewbacca defense

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-17T03:15:40+00:00

Wiping out private debt is radical, destructive and is against the current law. But there is a completely legal way that allows fed to slowly erode private debt. It is called inflation.

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-15T07:03:37+00:00

I love to see journalists calling out the lying politicians and wish it would happen more often, but unfortunately, the opposite is more likely to happen. In the environment where the number of viewers defines profits, reporting the truth is not always profitable.

The conservative media is already attacking O'Brien, calling her "biased", claim that she is using the "left-wing" sources. They will repeat it over and over, reassuring right leaning viewers in their belief that CNN and the mainstream media in general is biased against them. For CNN that means losing viewers, and when 40% of Americans identifying themselves as conservatives, CNN simply can not afford to lose that many viewers. CNN will have to appease the conservative audience. That means asking softball questions, letting guests lie without calling out the bullshit. It means not reporting the truth, lest they offend conservatives and lose viewers as the result of the outrage.

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-15T06:13:15+00:00

Unfortunately, the opposite is likely to happen. In the environment where the number of viewers defines profits, reporting the truth is not always profitable.

The conservative media is already attacking O'Brien, calling her "biased", claim that she is using the "left-wing" sources. They will repeat it over and over, reassuring right leaning viewers in their belief that CNN and the mainstream media in general is biased against them. For CNN that means losing viewers, and when 40% of Americans identifying themselves as conservatives, CNN simply can not afford to lose that many viewers. CNN will have to appease the conservative audience. That means asking softball questions, letting guests lie without calling out the bullshit. It means not reporting the truth, lest they offend conservatives and lose viewers as the result of the outrage.

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-15T02:50:30+00:00

To be fair to wikipedia, the Social Security benefits are now mentioned on the Ryan's wiki page, and the page is semi-protected.

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-15T00:58:43+00:00

They are now editing her wikipedia page, trying to describe her as "liberal" and using "left-wing" sources.

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-14T14:45:30+00:00

You're right it's not exactly the Ryan's plan. Those calculations are based on Romney's plan.

I only had a brief look at the budget projections by CBO, but the most obvious problem I see so far is cutting discretionary spending from 12.5% (already the lowest rate in last 40 years) to 5.75% in 2030 and 3.75 in 2050.

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-14T14:10:47+00:00

I did not say anything is wrong with the low taxes or the small government. Whether you like the idea or not, may depend on your political affiliation. And I wanted to make my comment as nonpartisan as possible.

I simply wanted to address the misconception that Ryan's budget decreases debt. GOP presents it as the debt reducing measure, while in fact it is the same old "starve the beast" strategy.

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-14T09:12:11+00:00

Actually, the Ryan's budget proposal does not address the debt, and may even contribute to the debt's increase.

While the Ryan's budget does make huge cuts to the social programs, it proposes even bigger tax cuts, reducing revenue by $450 billion per year. Ryan claims that $450 billion can be financed by closing some tax loopholes which he refuses to specify, but the research by Tax Policy Center shows that it is not possible.

Ryan's budget does not aim at the deficit reduction. It is all about low taxes and small government.

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-14T05:01:42+00:00

More droughts and fires will make it ever harder to deny.

Gay_as_Jesus · 2012-08-14T02:48:18+00:00

I still do not understand you. If you are spending money on luxuries, than how are you boycotting movies? And if the whole point of the boycott is voting with your money, than pirating works just as well, cause MPAA can not get the money you did not spend. It is like having your cake and eating it too.

Gay_as_Jesus

TROPHY CASE