WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-01 18:20:36 +0000

Yeah, BQ says that all the time too, "The Beastie Boys aren't going to tell me how to vote," or "Blender can't tell me how to vote." I don't get it. Obviously, no one "tells" anyone how to vote, even if you signed an oath to vote for Bush (so you could hear Cheney speak last month), you can still vote for whomever. There is no overseer. This is America. Is it that they aren't credible sources? You disagree with them? You've already made up your mind and can't be swayed? What does this, "tell me how to vote" actually mean? Honestly, please respond....

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-01 18:50:42 +0000

good Sources (IMHO): [list:95378e53ea]Wall Street Journal The Economist BBC News NYT and Boston globe are overrated. The writers can put complete sentences together and the arts/culture sections are always wonderful, but I disagree constantly with the OP-Ed and "News Analysis" pieces that are sometimes put on the front page of the newspaper WTF is news analysis: are these people saying: here's what you SHOULD think of the news that just happened? I'll draw my own conclusions, thanks! [/list:u:95378e53ea]

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-01 18:53:59 +0000

BTW if any of these sources (NYT, Blender, Punkvoter.org, MoveOn.org, etc etc)aren't "telling" me to vote for a particular candidate, then why are they always just "reporting" on the bad things that republicans do or do not do? When Adam Yauch says Bush is Hitler in Spin, (and excuse my sarcasm here) he must be suggesting that 19 year olds go out and vote and decide for themeselves, right? Is that the counter-opinion? Is He suggesting people vote for Bush? Why cant MCA say it is very important that you vote this November and LEAVE IT AT THAT ? I know we are beating a dead horse here, but this type of stuff IS NOT INFORMATION: Its Programming, and I dont know about you, but I hate being programmed and being told what to do and who to vote for etc. If you guys all think the government is terrible now, wait till you put even more $ into it and create more bureacracies. adding more cooks to the kitchen wont make for more jobs, better health care, etc. It will just add more regulation. I want all of these people(Republicans and Democrats) to leave me alone, and if Bush's mess is easier for a competent candidate to clean up after 4 years than Kerry's is, that's the way I'm gonna go. We can sling URLs back and forth til we're blue in the face, but this is the way I feel.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-01 19:18:45 +0000

... because that's what news sources do, they report. I still feel I'm missing something here.

Posted by frame609 on 2004-09-01 19:20:40 +0000

Back to the argument(s) about slant, sources, etc.

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-01 20:00:31 +0000

thanks for keeping us on topic Mike :)

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-01 20:04:46 +0000

I should've qualified my NPR listening as being the BBC News reports or the evening talk shows (On Point, Connection). Oh yeah, Marketplace is pretty good too. The Economist is a great rag, I considered a subscription but I'm not up for a weekly yet. Hitting the website occasionally is find for me. Oh yeah, I forgot The Atlantic Monthly. WSJ shades its content to the right, maybe the Old Gray Lady shades it to the left. The Economist is supposedly right of center, but they're British, so, it doesn't really count. I at first assumed The Atlantic as leftist, but it's not, it's straight down the middle as well. I think Ned has said that the BBC is the standard for middle of the road, and I might agree. The same complaints one makes against the NYT one can just as easily make against the WSJ. I'm not familiar with the WSJ editorial content, however, I'm going to go out on a limb and say the can't hold a candle to Brooks, Safire, Dowd, Kristof, Herbert and Krugman (listed Right to Left). Whats wrong with commentary? If you know where it's coming from, it can be useful. The Boston Globe has the best Sports section in the country. I appreciate the City Weekly, City & Region, and (believe it or not) Ideas section on Sundays. The Globe is also pretty clear on labeling things as commentary or news analysis, [url=https://bostonglobe.com/newsroom/faq/faq_defs.stm]TBG FAQ[/url], so those who want "Just the Facts, Ma'am" can do so. I don't really look at it mid-week unless it pops up on the google news radar. Maybe it's only the Republicans that are doing the bad things, Rich.

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-01 21:26:34 +0000

[quote:e94cce81b4="terryg"] Maybe it's only the Republicans that are doing the bad things, Rich.[/quote:e94cce81b4] must be. Must be. It seems like we do actually read a lot of the same sources. Its pretty fascinating the different viewpoints one can derive from the same sources. My dad has the economist subscription it's pretty hardcore in terms of Cost to Subscribe Yearly, but my mom knows what keeps him happy. My Dad without the Economist would be a scary site indeed.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2004-09-01 21:35:25 +0000

[quote:d7dc5bb2e7]When Adam Yauch says Bush is Hitler in Spin, (and excuse my sarcasm here) he must be suggesting that 19 year olds go out and vote and decide for themeselves, right? Is that the counter-opinion? Is He suggesting people vote for Bush? Why cant MCA say it is very important that you vote this November and LEAVE IT AT THAT ? [/quote:d7dc5bb2e7] Because he believes Bush to be like Hilter! If one has strong opinion about something, voice it. If someone votes for Bush, MCA thinks they are making a mistake, so he's not going to leave it at that. He's not a reporter or a journalist, and he's not unbiased. Again, there is no overseer; we all get to vote for ourselves. I (selfishly) am angry my tax burden has gone up, my sister's family has lost their health insurance, education funding has been slashed, social security is insecure, there is literally no US environmental policy, "terrorism" has become a sound-bite, the economy has gotten worse, and the world loathes my country: all directly related to Bush/Cheney. How can I vote for Bush and be voting for myself?

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-02 04:08:15 +0000

I'm formulating a response to dawnbixtler in this, and it is taking awhile longer than I thought. Thanks are due to terry g btw for creating a specific area for this (as most people are probably tired of reading this stuff back and forth. before I go further though, I'm gonna have to sleep for at least 2 hours first do g'night...

Posted by frame609 on 2004-09-02 05:27:30 +0000

We should all just be honest and rename this particular forum 'Arguing.'

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-02 05:56:09 +0000

While formulating my last response, I missed all this. [quote:b77176f659="rladew"]BTW if any of these sources (NYT, Blender, Punkvoter.org, MoveOn.org, etc etc)aren't "telling" me to vote for a particular candidate, then why are they always just "reporting" on the bad things that republicans do or do not do?[/quote:b77176f659] If the National Review isn't "telling" me to vote for a particular candidate why are they always "reporting" on the bad things Democrats always do or do not do? Why is the right so angry at my sources (I'll reiterate that of the four mentioned above, I only use the first (NYT), and on that source's Op-ed page it has at least 2, if not 3, strong libretarian-conservative voices) when there are plenty of right-leaning sources that us left-wingers are happy to let have their say? [quote:b77176f659="rladew"]When Adam Yauch says Bush is Hitler in Spin, (and excuse my sarcasm here) he must be suggesting that 19 year olds go out and vote and decide for themeselves, right?[/quote:b77176f659] If you really believed Jesus Christ was the Savior of the World, you'd want to spend all your time telling people, right? If you really believed another George Bush presidency would be detrimental to your way of life and your neighbor's way of life, you'd want to spend all your time telling people, right? [b:b77176f659]Why are we castigating people for saying what they believe in?[/b:b77176f659] I have no problem with Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Pat Buchanon using their celebrity to expound on the US electorate. [quote:b77176f659="rladew"]Why cant MCA say it is very important that you vote this November and LEAVE IT AT THAT ?[/quote:b77176f659] Obviously, his opinion is more far-reaching than just the importance of voting. Why must someone _limit_their_speech_if_they_don't_want_to_ ? [quote:b77176f659="rladew"]I know we are beating a dead horse here, but this type of stuff IS NOT INFORMATION: Its Programming, and I dont know about you, but I hate being programmed and being told what to do and who to vote for etc.[/quote:b77176f659] MCA, Diamond Mike, Ben Affleck, and Barbara Streisand have not programmed me. It [b:b77176f659]IS[/b:b77176f659] information; I know who they are intending on voting for. They are successful Americans, just like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ron Silver, and Tom Selleck. If MCA is "programming" Americans, what do you call Schwarzenegger using references from his popular movies during his speech at the RNC? [quote:b77176f659="rladew"]If you guys all think the government is terrible now, wait till you put even more $ into it and create more bureacracies.[/quote:b77176f659] "Us guys" probably think government is terrible now for different reasons than you. My main beef with the government is the inept use of American power to combat terrorism. Secondarily, this Administration has increased domestic discretionary spending more than the Clinton Administration ([url=http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=139]source[/url]). I'm already putting more money into it! I've got increased gasoline expenditures, higher highway toll rates, higher tuition costs, higher property taxes, higher fees for state issued licenses and services. [quote:b77176f659="rladew"]adding more cooks to the kitchen wont make for more jobs, better health care, etc. It will just add more regulation.[/quote:b77176f659] What are your claims based on? As far as health care goes, Kerry is targetting the roughly 30% of the annual health care expenditure that is wasted on administration costs. Surely you support the reduction of waste in the health system, a worthy business goal. [quote:b77176f659="rladew"]I want all of these people(Republicans and Democrats) to leave me alone, and if Bush's mess is easier for a competent candidate to clean up after 4 years than Kerry's is, that's the way I'm gonna go.[/quote:b77176f659] We need a competent candidate to clean up the _first_ four years of the Bush mess! Another four years? Good God! You're willing to give Bush a pass this year in hopes of gettting McCain in 2008? (Personally, I find Clinton/Powell an interesting ticket.) [quote:b77176f659="rladew"]We can sling URLs back and forth til we're blue in the face, but this is the way I feel.[/quote:b77176f659] I completely respect that. [quote:b77176f659="dawnbixtler"]I still feel I'm missing something here.[/quote:b77176f659] Rich believes the news reporting by certain sources is biased. Rich is offended when celebreties use the fame, that we alloted them, to pronounce their own opinions. Rich believes he's being programmed (paranoid?), however, I can attest that he hasn't, otherwise, he'd be on our side. ;) [quote:b77176f659="frame609"]We should all just be honest and rename this particular forum 'Arguing.'[/quote:b77176f659] Why doesn't this happen in the "Rawk" section"? I was hoping for meaningful debate. But if most people see this as pointless bickering... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK, I might be doing a little drunk posting right now.

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-02 19:10:17 +0000

Ha, even after the fog is lifted, I still agree with myself. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [url=http://www.economist.com./agenda/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=3127865]leftist rubbish[/url] Nowhere in this article does the author(s) tell me who to vote for. From where I'm reading it, it doesn't paint a pretty picture about the Bush Adminstrations foreign, social, or fiscal policies.

Posted by rladew on 2004-09-03 01:06:32 +0000

[quote:48653adcad="terryg"]Ha, even after the fog is lifted, I still agree with myself..[/quote:48653adcad] congratulations!

Posted by tgl on 2004-09-07 16:03:53 +0000

Listened to [url=http://www.notmuch.com]Whad'Ya Know?[/url] while driving from Chicago to Davenport, IA on Saturday. It was a rebroadcast from Birmingham, AL There was an interview with an editor from one of the local papers (forgot which one). To paraphrase: "On the editorial page, we're not telling you what to think, we're telling you what we think." Which isn't quite ground-breaking, I guess. This doesn't address perceived or actual media bias which is a common complaint. I have a hard time finding bias in the news, per se, although there are editorial decisions about what events to cover, e.g., reports from the ground in Iraq are mostly page 2 stuff since the "transfer of power". Facts is facts, right? If everyone's editorial pages were unbiased; that'd be pretty boring.