Right-Wing Media are Destroying Our Country

User Forum Topic
Submitted by zk on May 12, 2017 - 6:41am

For a long time I've been saying that the right-wing media is destroying our country. This is what I'm talking about:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/poli...

Republican voters, being human and therefore credulous and gullible, believe whatever they hear on Fox Propaganda (and Breitbart and the rest of the right-wing media). They support republicans and con man don no matter what they do, because Fox Propaganda tells them republicans and con man don are doing a great job no matter what they do.

As I've said before, I don't think right-wing voters are more credulous than left-wing voters or anybody else. The difference is that there is a massive industry dedicated to right-wing propaganda.

Sure, the left has some propaganda available. But there are big differences between what's available on the left and what's available on the right. Mainly Fox Propaganda, but there is a lot more. Fox Propaganda is propaganda masquerading as real, hard, actual news. And it's the go-to "news" outlet of tens of millions of Americans. The left has nothing like that. Many conservatives will tell you that all of the mainstream media is left-wing propaganda. This is because they believe whatever they hear on Fox Propaganda, which has been peddling that idea since the day they come on the air. And now, you have Breitbart and a thousand other "news" websites, all of which create an alternate universe where a right winger can find all the sources he needs to validate what he's hearing on Fox Propaganda. Many of them have moved past Fox Propaganda and now have Breitbart and similarly virulent right-wing propaganda sites as their go-to "news" outlet. They never want or see a need to read the New York Times or the Washington Post. Why would they read actual news when they have available to them thousands of places that make them feel great about themselves and their ideas? Somewhere where everyone agrees with them?

So now we have a president with fascist tendencies, and a congress afraid to stand up to him, because it will hurt them with their base, because their base loves con man don, and they can's see con man don for what he is because they're watching Fox Propaganda, which is telling them how great he's doing. He's in the process of eliminating governmental checks on his power. There's a good chance he'll succeed, because nobody wants to stand up to him, because that would be an unpopular move with republican voters, who think he's doing a great job because they watch Fox Propaganda.

What happens when you have a fascist president with greatly reduced checks on his power? Unfortunately, I think we're about to find out. And we have right-wing media to thank.

Submitted by zk on May 26, 2017 - 3:20pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Being tough and strong and wanting to respond to everything with shock and awe, overwhelmming pushnishment is nothing to be proud of. That also flies in the face of the teachings of the Bible.

Have you read the old testament?

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 26, 2017 - 9:47pm.

zk wrote:

Have you read the old testament?

I have not read it but, if I remember what i was told, the Old Testament says sinners should stoned to death.

But then Jesus died for our sins and we're supposed to turn the other cheek and welcome foreigners as our own.

Submitted by outtamojo on May 27, 2017 - 12:13am.

FlyerInHi wrote:
zk wrote:

Have you read the old testament?

I have not read it but, if I remember what i was told, the Old Testament says sinners should stoned to death.

But then Jesus died for our sins and we're supposed to turn the other cheek and welcome foreigners as our own.

Ah now there's the rub. There are always sub sects within your own religion that considers you not pious enough and thus a sinner in their eyes. Those " religious freedom" shills should opt out of secular protections afforded them by our Bill of Rights and submit themselves to rule by theocracy and punished by the inevitable rise of their religious police. Miss a prayer or have an extramarital fling? Let those who would stone you have their religious freedom!

Submitted by SK in CV on May 27, 2017 - 10:18am.

.

Submitted by SK in CV on May 27, 2017 - 10:18am.

zk wrote:
FlyerInHi wrote:
Being tough and strong and wanting to respond to everything with shock and awe, overwhelmming pushnishment is nothing to be proud of. That also flies in the face of the teachings of the Bible.

Have you read the old testament?

I have.

Justice, justice, thou shall pursue.

Submitted by zk on May 27, 2017 - 12:17pm.

SK in CV wrote:
zk wrote:
FlyerInHi wrote:
Being tough and strong and wanting to respond to everything with shock and awe, overwhelmming pushnishment is nothing to be proud of. That also flies in the face of the teachings of the Bible.

Have you read the old testament?

I have.

Justice, justice, thou shall pursue.

Exactly. An eye for an eye. So to say that responding to violence with violence flies in the face of the teachings of the bible doesn't really...fly.

Of course, the bible apparently being subject to interpretation as it is, one can interpret the bible to mean almost anything they want. Especially considering all the contradictory things the bible says.

I certainly don't want to jack my own thread, but I've never gotten a decent answer to these questions:

If your holy book is strictly the word of god and not subject to interpretation, how do you explain/justify the horrors in that book?

If your holy book is subject to interpretation, then aren't those interpretations subject to the folly of man, and therefore not true divine guidance?

If your holy book is not true divine guidance, then what's the point of it?

What is your favorite color?

What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?

Anyway, fortunately, the bible is not the law of the land. Let's keep it that way.

Submitted by SK in CV on May 27, 2017 - 12:36pm.

zk wrote:
SK in CV wrote:
zk wrote:
FlyerInHi wrote:
Being tough and strong and wanting to respond to everything with shock and awe, overwhelmming pushnishment is nothing to be proud of. That also flies in the face of the teachings of the Bible.

Have you read the old testament?

I have.

Justice, justice, thou shall pursue.

Exactly. An eye for an eye.

No. Not exactly. In fact, not even in the same universe as an eye for an eye. Closer to just the opposite of an eye for an eye.

And I'm not a believer, so it's not my bible. I was just pointing out, as you have, that the Hebrew Bible, the larger part of the Old Testament, like most religious texts, has some serious inconsistencies.

Submitted by zk on May 27, 2017 - 1:24pm.

SK in CV wrote:

No. Not exactly. In fact, not even in the same universe as an eye for an eye. Closer to just the opposite of an eye for an eye.

And I'm not a believer, so it's not my bible. I was just pointing out, as you have, that the Hebrew Bible, the larger part of the Old Testament, like most religious texts, has some serious inconsistencies.

Opposite? What? You lost me.

I was saying that the old testament says an eye for an eye, not that you were saying that.

Submitted by SK in CV on May 27, 2017 - 3:29pm.

zk wrote:
SK in CV wrote:

No. Not exactly. In fact, not even in the same universe as an eye for an eye. Closer to just the opposite of an eye for an eye.

And I'm not a believer, so it's not my bible. I was just pointing out, as you have, that the Hebrew Bible, the larger part of the Old Testament, like most religious texts, has some serious inconsistencies.

Opposite? What? You lost me.

I was saying that the old testament says an eye for an eye, not that you were saying that.

I thought you were referring to the biblical quote I provided: "justice, justice, thou shall pursue". It's among my favorites. And isn't anything like "an eye for an eye".

Submitted by zk on May 27, 2017 - 9:05pm.

SK in CV wrote:

I thought you were referring to the biblical quote I provided: "justice, justice, thou shall pursue". It's among my favorites. And isn't anything like "an eye for an eye".

I was unclear. My bad.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 28, 2017 - 1:43pm.

I was listening to Pod Save America.... I find liberal media more young, sunny and funny compared to right wing media which is all about fear and angst.

Submitted by zk on May 29, 2017 - 5:59pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
I was listening to Pod Save America.... I find liberal media more young, sunny and funny compared to right wing media which is all about fear and angst.

I'll pass on anything biased. Just the truth, please.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 29, 2017 - 7:23pm.

zk wrote:
FlyerInHi wrote:
I was listening to Pod Save America.... I find liberal media more young, sunny and funny compared to right wing media which is all about fear and angst.

I'll pass on anything biased. Just the truth, please.

Very truthful... they don't need to make up shit because Trump provides plenty of material.

Liberals laugh more. They are riled up less.

The asymmetry is also that bleeding hearts will call you out if you're insensitive (or shaming of others) while right wingers are free to "call it like it is", except when you call them like they are.

If you contrast Justin Trudeau to Donald Trump you cleary see the difference in approach and psychology. Very interesting!

Submitted by harvey on May 31, 2017 - 6:10pm.

Today's recent headlines present a brilliant example of the "both sides are the same" fallacy:

- Some obscure comedian, Kathy Griffin, makes a lame joke about Trump's death. The joke is tasteless and stupid.

- Of course Trump & Fox News use it as an opportunity for outrage and butthurt

- CNN immediately disowns Griffin and her stunt is criticized by key Democratic figures.

- Griffin apologizes and acknowledges her mistake as she returns to obscurity.

Now contrast that with Ted Nugent, who has repeatedly made similar threatening statements against the president and Democratic candidates (and not even in the context of comedy.)

- Trump himself invites Nugent to the White House

(And let's never forget that Ted Nugent literally shit his pants to avoid the draft...)

The hypocrisy is beyond comprehension and apparently beyond the point of no return.

Submitted by zk on June 2, 2017 - 8:22am.

Right-wing media are destroying our country and trying to take the world down with us. These fox-watching fools voted for this.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassi...

Submitted by FlyerInHi on June 2, 2017 - 11:27am.

The business community was venal and supported Trump as their own.

But now that he's handed several wins to China, even Lloyd Blankfein has come out against Trump. China is poised to lead in the technologies of the future while we look in the rear view mirror.

And Trump is wrong about Pittsburg. It's a new economy city with a concentration of universities and medical facilities in the metro. Pittsburg is like Columbus, OH, islands of progress in the middle of deplorable country.

Submitted by ucodegen on June 2, 2017 - 11:31am.

zk wrote:
Right-wing media are destroying our country and trying to take the world down with us. These fox-watching fools voted for this.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/donald-trumps-screw-you-to-the-world


We already debated the AGW subject to death, and it didn't hold up. 'The math doesn't add up'. I can find the thread where there was a debate between Dr. Chaos and myself.. I don't feel like repeating it, and I don't think that most of you have the qualifications that he has. Quick ending summary was that even Hansen of NOAA had to agree that water was not accurately reflected in the climate models. I had even supplied a link supporting such. The underlying problem is that water is a significantly stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It also occurs in higher concentrations than carbon dioxide. For example, while worried about carbon dioxide at 400ppm, air at 70 degrees Fahrenheit and 37 percent humidity (which is on the dry side), contains more than 9200ppm of water. Carbon dioxide does not appear in significant concentrations in the upper atmosphere - which would be required for a greenhouse gas (why is there an 'alpine tree line'?) Some claim that it is because cold or snow cover lasts too long - but this is dis-proven by visiting areas of Alaska. Final thing to consider; it takes 1 Calorie to heat 1 gram of water 1 degree Centigrade, but it takes more than 500 Calories to vaporize the same amount of water. When it condenses in the upper atmosphere, it releases that same energy from the planet.

So while we are chasing this carbon dioxide ghost, we are ignoring some real and critical problems. Do you know that most Third World countries dump their sewage into rivers and oceans almost completely untreated? This exposes the ocean and its residents to human viruses including HPV, AIDS. It also exposes the ocean to human hormones which have been proven to affect fish. At the time of the Olympics, Rio was treating less than 25% of their sewage (if you are really interested, I might be able to dig up that study, though I think it is still accessible on the web).

With the money we have thrown at the IPCC on this designer cause, we could have fixed a significant portion of the Third World clean water and sanitation problems. By the way, take look at studies showing how lack of clean water an sanitation adversely affect child development, including mental development.

By the way, the current Paris accord puts minimal restrictions on China, while putting much more significant restrictions on the United States. Currently China produces approximately twice the carbon dioxide that the United States does - not to mention airborne particulates that also include mercury, lead and sulfur.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on June 2, 2017 - 12:34pm.

Ucodegen, regardless of your point of view, what's wrong with green tech and green living?

Remember Michele Bachman and her light bulb choice act? Well now you can buy LED bulbs at the 99c store. Are the dumbasses who stocked up on incandescent bulbs still running them and paying the electricity?

Plus Trump is not putting resources that would be applied to the Paris accord into other environmental solutions.

Submitted by harvey on June 2, 2017 - 12:41pm.

ucodegen wrote:
We already debated the AGW subject to death, and it didn't hold up.

I was wondering who kept the official record on what we decided.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Submitted by zk on June 2, 2017 - 3:47pm.

ucodegen wrote:

We already debated the AGW subject to death, and it didn't hold up.

The only places this is true are in right-wing media and with others who have an agenda.

Submitted by ucodegen on June 3, 2017 - 1:00pm.

harvey wrote:
ucodegen wrote:
We already debated the AGW subject to death, and it didn't hold up.

I was wondering who kept the official record on what we decided.

Thanks for clearing that up.


I didn't keep the official record - it is out there for all to see on Piggington, all you have to do is dig into the previous postings. That means that Piggington has kept the official record of the discussions that occurred on Piggington. I was just reminding people of those discussions and what happened at the end.

zk wrote:
ucodegen wrote:

We already debated the AGW subject to death, and it didn't hold up.

The only places this is true are in right-wing media and with others who have an agenda.


If the basic math doesn't hold up, then it doesn't hold up. It is kind of simple there.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Ucodegen, regardless of your point of view, what's wrong with green tech and green living?

Remember Michele Bachman and her light bulb choice act? Well now you can buy LED bulbs at the 99c store. Are the dumbasses who stocked up on incandescent bulbs still running them and paying the electricity?

Plus Trump is not putting resources that would be applied to the Paris accord into other environmental solutions.


There is nothing wrong with green tech itself, as well as green living, but true green tech has much more to do with other things than just Carbon Dioxide. Science should not be twisted to manipulate or exploit a populace. Science should always be pure and honest - regardless of politics.

Trump is not yet putting resources that would be put to the Paris accord. We don't know how that money will be directed. Some really simple things have very effective results. My opinion is to continue the Solar rebates and enforce Net Metering on the power companies (yes, that is you Nevada). Of course this would not be popular with certain big businesses, but it helps individuals and it also a very effective way for individuals to save money - and be efficient. It is also very effective way to reduce fossil fuel usage. If you burn 300KWh in a month, that is the same as 3.33 full recharges on a Tesla P90 (effectively 3.33 full 'refuels'.)

The Paris accord is like 'paying indulgences' to the Catholic church. It really doesn't fix things. The entire Carbon trading scenario has been usurped by investment banks to make money at the expense to everyone else. They make a percentage as the 'broker' on the deal, yet contribute nothing. The money that goes to the third world countries doesn't really go to the people of those countries. Most of the third world countries are not democracies, or are democracies with considerable internal corruption.

Green and green tech is much, much more than 'carbon'. This is why I pointed out the problems with sewage treatment, particulate matter and heavy metals like lead and mercury. There is a good natural 'uptake' or 'sequestration' channel for Carbon Dioxide (plants and trees), but none for the other items I mentioned.

This is also why I mentioned China, who is turning a good portion of their country into an ecological disaster. Yet this same country barely has any responsibility for their emissions under the current Paris accord, which are nearly twice the US carbon dioxide emissions not to mention particulate, lead and mercury - and other noxious chemicals. No wonder they agree to it, it seriously hamstrings all other nations while leaving China free reign.

On a side note, I thought the people who stocked up on tungsten lights were idiots than, and are still idiots. The only tungsten lights I stocked up on were the ones that go into ovens. CF and LED can't take the heat of an oven, the only tech that I know of that can is the old tech. Besides, all the waste energy of a tungsten light is heat - and an oven is used for heating things.. I also didn't stock up on CFs when they came out and had discounts, because in mass manufacturing - prices almost always go down - and new and better tech tends to be around the corner.
NOTE: The only other thing I find tungsten light useful for is indoor photography. Most CFs have a weird color temperature as well as some LEDs.

Submitted by zk on June 3, 2017 - 3:40pm.

ucodegen wrote:

zk wrote:
ucodegen wrote:

We already debated the AGW subject to death, and it didn't hold up.

The only places this is true are in right-wing media and with others who have an agenda.


If the basic math doesn't hold up, then it doesn't hold up. It is kind of simple there.

Clearly some people are doing math differently from others or, probably more accurately, basing their math on different assumptions, as deniers have come up with different conclusions from the consensus of scientists.

You can say the math doesn't add up. The consensus of the world's scientists disagrees with you.

Submitted by zk on June 3, 2017 - 3:44pm.

I recommend this article, entitled, "How G.O.P. Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science"

Also, I would say, how G.O.P. followers came to that same conclusion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/po...

With the help of a small army of oil-industry-funded academics like Wei-Hock Soon of Harvard Smithsonian and think tanks like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, [conservative activists] had been working to discredit academics and government climate change scientists."

With think tanks and Harvard academics obfuscating the matter, it shouldn't be hard to convince those who are already inclined to want to believe what republicans tell them - and, maybe more importantly, who are already strongly averse to anything that any liberals espouse - that climate change isn't real. Especially those who aren't climate scientists.

You (ucodegen)aren't doing any original research. And neither am I. And I would wager that most or all of your charts and graphs and ideas originated with these oil-industry-funded academics.

If the consensus among scientists is that humans are causing climate change, and most of the resistance to that idea is political (from oil-industry-funded politicians and from republican loyalists, including right-wing media) and monetary (from the oil industry and their lackey academics), then it seems pretty clear to me where the truth lies.

Submitted by zk on June 3, 2017 - 3:41pm.

dup

Submitted by FlyerInHi on June 4, 2017 - 11:15am.

To add to zk' s comments, here's why evangelicals are climate change deniers, and voted for Trump. May Trump give them the Trumpism they deserve.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts...

Submitted by scaredyclassic on June 4, 2017 - 12:27pm.

kids out of school.

gonna ride my bike to work this summer.

Submitted by zk on June 4, 2017 - 8:39pm.

Here's another good article.

"Anti-science kookery."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201...

Submitted by FlyerInHi on June 5, 2017 - 10:16am.

zk wrote:
Here's another good article.

"Anti-science kookery."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201...

Interesting that the article was written years before Trump. Republicans don't just get to blame Trump. They bear responsibility for enabling an anti-science, anti-education culture.

Submitted by zk on June 5, 2017 - 1:01pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
zk wrote:
Here's another good article.

"Anti-science kookery."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201...

Interesting that the article was written years before Trump. Republicans don't just get to blame Trump. They bear responsibility for enabling an anti-science, anti-education culture.

Concur. It's even worse that the congressional republicans probably don't actually believe that climate change isn't human-caused. They pretend to believe that, and they try to sell it to their constituents, but they probably know better.

Con man don, on the other hand...

When he was running for president, before I knew much about him, I said to a friend, "this guy really has his finger on the pulse of the manipulated right wingers." My friend said, "no, he is one of the manipulated right wingers." It turns out my friend was right. I think trump actually believes the crap he reads on breitbart. I know, he used to be moderate to liberal on a few issues. He's easily influenced, though. He is notorious for being susceptible to the sales pitch of the last person to talk to him. And with the king of the alt-right in the next office whispering in his ear all the time and with his frequent reading of breitbart articles and, astoundingly, infowars articles, he's gone full-tilt, brainwashed, batshit-crazy alt-right.

And, as long as fox propaganda and the rest of the right-wing media are putting a positive spin on everything he does, the manipulated right wingers will continue to support him.

Submitted by outtamojo on June 5, 2017 - 9:15pm.

Coworkers says she was watching fox news and they said some kid got accepted to Stanford just for writing BLM on essay. She totally believed it, she being college educated also.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.