Michael Savage: 'Liberalism is a Mental Disorder' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32141970]He's just saying that the two statements are not equivalent in their "wrong-ness".[/QUOTE] But that's assuming that there are different degrees of "wrong-ness", which I completely disagree with. Something is either factual or fiction.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;32142008]But that's assuming that there are different degrees of "wrong-ness", which I completely disagree with. Something is either factual or fiction.[/QUOTE] [I]except one statement requires more unbased assumptions to be made about the nature of reality and is therefor more incorrect[/I] I tied my shoes with the help of an alien does not contain as many falsities as I tied my shoes with the help of an alien and then went into space to fight bigfoot but he was secretly obama so while both statements are incorrect one states more incorrect facts than the other DO YOU GET IT?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;32140686]...These men are all products of the same system, a system which profits off of adding fuel to the fire of the natural split in our bipartisan state. Their methods might be different, but the nature of their goals is all the same.[/QUOTE] Yeah, you're right. I missed the money angle entirely for some reason. Nice post

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;32142380][I]except one statement requires more unbased assumptions to be made about the nature of reality and is therefor more incorrect[/I] I tied my shoes with the help of an alien does not contain as many falsities as I tied my shoes with the help of an alien and then went into space to fight bigfoot but he was secretly obama so while both statements are incorrect one states more incorrect facts than the other DO YOU GET IT?[/QUOTE] Why does it matter if both statements are incorrect anyways? "I tied my shoes with the help of an alien" is no less wrong than "I tied my shoes with the help of an alien and then went into space to fight bigfoot but he was secretly obama" [editline]6th September 2011[/editline] In fact the subtle, more believable lies are the most dangerous. Not the outrageous ones.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;32142536]In fact the subtle, more believable lies are the most dangerous. Not the outrageous ones.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but think realistically here. If you're swayed by Maddow/Obermann the worst that could happen is that you don't like corporations very much and don't mind if gays get married, where as the worst that could happen if you're swayed by O'Reilly/Beck is that you think there's an enormous conspiracy going on by the "Left" and Islamists to destroy America. Or in a more mild form that you don't trust Muslims and you think Obama's not an American citizen.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32142878]Yeah, but think realistically here. If you're swayed by Maddow/Obermann the worst that could happen is that you don't like corporations very much and don't mind if gays get married, where as the worst that could happen if you're swayed by O'Reilly/Beck is that you think there's an enormous conspiracy going on by the "Left" and Islamists to destroy America. Or in a more mild form that you don't trust Muslims and you think Obama's not an American citizen.[/QUOTE] I would say if you are swayed by Maddow/Obermann you would think all Republicans are bigoted, racist, redneck, uneducated, homophobes. You would foster a great deal of hatred for corporations and free market in general, and believe anyone who doesn't believe in liberalism is somehow heartless and greedy. That's the extreme, but you posted an extreme of what a conservative following O'Reilly/Beck would believe, so I think it's valid. The thing about Maddow and Obermann is that they are more subtle. They aren't overt, they plant the idea in your mind without actually coming out and saying it. I'm not saying it's some huge conspiracy to brainwash people but it's a more sophisticated form of political persuasion that works on more "sensible" people, where Glenn and O'Reilly use a more direct and outrageous form to persuade more emotional and kneejerk audiences.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;32142008]But that's assuming that there are different degrees of "wrong-ness", which I completely disagree with. Something is either factual or fiction.[/QUOTE] [url]http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm[/url] There are degrees of "factual-ness" which are contextual. You do not remember all the digits of Pi, and yet 3.14 is "true enough" for your daily life. Your calculator probably remembers several more, but not too many. I have a form of it in an engineering calculator that can handle it in more than one number system, but even that's "wrong" to a degree. So are results calculated out to a trillion digits. But they are wrong to significantly different degrees. [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;32141367]You might as well be saying that "Planes are unsafe" and "Elevators eat people" are the same statement.[/QUOTE] Don't say that shit, man, an elevator ate my grandma.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;32142964]I would say if you are swayed by Maddow/Obermann you would think all Republicans are bigoted, racist, redneck, uneducated, homophobes. You would foster a great deal of hatred for corporations and free market in general, and believe anyone who doesn't believe in liberalism is somehow heartless and greedy.[/QUOTE] In reference to Republican politicians maybe, but not Republicans in general. Are you trying to suggest that Republican politicians are not homophobic? And I don't think it would be a hatred for corporations and the free market, just a distrust of corporations when it comes to things involving greed, and a notion that the free market needs some regulation. Even if I went with your extreme example, that is still a lot less assuming than the Fox News extreme example.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32143117]In reference to Republican politicians maybe, but not Republicans in general.[/quote] Yes, Republicans in general. If you hate Republican politicians is it much of a stretch to hate the people who vote for them? [quote]Are you trying to suggest that Republican politicians are not homophobic?[/quote] Are you trying to suggest Republican politicians are inherently homophobic? [quote]Even if I went with your extreme example, that is still a lot less assuming than the Fox News extreme example.[/QUOTE] Like Big Dumb American said, it still creates a climate of political hostility and partisanship which is not very good for our political system.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;32142964]I would say if you are swayed by Maddow/Obermann[/QUOTE] don't talk such rot, they are not even comparable

[QUOTE=thisispain;32143272]don't talk such rot, they are not even comparable[/QUOTE] They are all political analysts, of course they are comparable.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;32143211]Are you trying to suggest Republican politicians are inherently homophobic?[/QUOTE] Their official party platform is against gay civil rights, so I'd say yes.

Megafanx, can you not see that you are the very product of the ignorance which this system perpetuates? Please, just take a moment to step back from your argument for a moment and read over your last several replies. You continue to persist that [i]Republican[/i] news analysts are the [i]true[/i] liars, and that even though the Liberal analysts are committing the exact same crime, it's not [i]nearly[/i] as bad as what those [i]Republican[/i] analysts say. Those [i]Republican[/i] analysts are just a hundred times worse, and you'd have to be [i]stupid[/i] to disagree. Can you not see this pattern? Why is it so important to you that people agree with you that Republican analysts tell [i]bigger[/i] lies, are [i]more[/i] aggressive, are [i]worse[/i]? Why is it so important to you that people think that Liberal analysts, despite the fact that they resort to the same tactics, are seen as more logical, professional, and generally better? It's because you are the product of a partisan state which has deemed that you support one party and condemn the other, and you are doing a stellar job of upholding those grim conventions. Fuck the party prefix. Judge a man on an individual basis, not by the party with which he associates himself. Glenn Beck is a raving Lunatic. Michael Savage is delusional (ditto Michael Moore), Keith Olbermann is a self-righteous windbag, and all of these men use misinformation, speculation, and skewed reporting to push their agendas and further split the nation. These men, the people who take the things which they have to say at face value, and the politicians who rely on the product of these agendas are detrimental to society as a whole.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;32143346]Megafanx, can you not see that you are the very product of the ignorance which this system perpetuates? Please, just take a moment to step back from your argument for a moment and read over your last several replies. You continue to persist that [i]Republican[/i] news analysts are the [i]true[/i] liars, and that even though the Liberal analysts are committing the exact same crime, it's not [i]nearly[/i] as bad as what those [i]Republican[/i] analysts say. Those [i]Republican[/i] analysts are just a hundred times worse, and you'd have to be [i]stupid[/i] to disagree. Can you not see this pattern? Why is it so important to you that people agree with you that Republican analysts tell [i]bigger[/i] lies, are [i]more[/i] aggressive, are [i]worse[/i]? Why is it so important to you that people think that Liberal analysts, despite the fact that they resort to the same tactics, are seen as more logical, professional, and generally better? It's because you are the product of a partisan state which has deemed that you support one party and condemn the other, and you are doing a stellar job of upholding those grim conventions.[/QUOTE] You make a fair point, and I can see where you're coming from. As for being a product of partisan ignorance, that I would have to disagree with. I have respect for Republicans if they are deserving of respect, same as I do for Democrats. Chris Christy or Jon Huntsman for example are GOP men I have respect for. Ron Paul I respect, even though I disagree with his ideals. I perpetuate the idea that Republican analysts are worse because in my opinion they are. However, this sort of dialogue on both sides is detrimental to getting things done, and in that I concede that you are right. [editline]5th September 2011[/editline] Don't get me wrong here BDA, I'm trying my very best to take your argument seriously.

Megafanx is probably the most reasonable open minded person in SH. :dance:

[QUOTE=yawmwen;32143439]Megafanx is probably the most reasonable open minded person in SH. :dance:[/QUOTE] I appreciate the thought, but I don't consider myself above any other poster in SH. I simply try to argue in a fair and civil manner, just as I'd expect of anyone else.

Why are you people all (seemingly) supporting the idea of a bipartisan state? [editline]6th September 2011[/editline] I mean yes, your two party system is screwed, I agree there! But is the answer a one party system, of multi-polar environment of pluralism?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;32143346] Can you not see this pattern? Why is it so important to you that people agree with you that Republican analysts tell [i]bigger[/i] lies, are [i]more[/i] aggressive, are [i]worse[/i]? Why is it so important to you that people think that Liberal analysts, despite the fact that they resort to the same tactics, are seen as more logical, professional, and generally better? It's because you are the product of a partisan state which has deemed that you support one party and condemn the other, and you are doing a stellar job of upholding those grim conventions.[/QUOTE] is it impossible to sincerely view one side worse than another? you're assuming that he views the analysts as republican or democrat, not on their own persona. the essence of the entire thing is political opinion and i'm not gonna consider them the same on my scale when one describes my standpoint as insane or american-hating and communist (among other things glenn beck has called progressives).

[QUOTE=Corky;32138478]I've been told that I have been mentally manipulated by "my evil liberal parents" by a middle aged tea partier because I was helping when Obama showed up to Portland, Maine. I kicked him in the balls.[/QUOTE] I hope he pressed assault charges.

well Im already mental, guess this isn't much worse.