The Science of Fox News: Why Its Viewers are the Most Misinformed

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Free Thinker, Apr 16, 2012.

  1. Brass

    Brass

    The middle ground is always the more considered view. Few answers lie at the extremes.
     
    #51     Apr 17, 2012
  2. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    I thought they were BOTH already running amok.
     
    #52     Apr 17, 2012
  3. Epic

    Epic

    I would argue that you are correct only because of the extremists in both ideologies. Other than maybe during the civil war, this has to be the most polarized era in US politics.

    I view left and right in much the same way that I view executive and judicial. Sometimes they work toward a common end, but many times they simply serve to keep the other in check.
     
    #53     Apr 17, 2012
  4. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    Personally I wish we'd either divide into two or more smaller countries like we should have done in 1860. Or go ahead and get the next civil war over with so we can move on already.
     
    #54     Apr 17, 2012
  5. Brass

    Brass

    So that the South could have continued to enjoy the perks of slavery?
     
    #55     Apr 17, 2012
  6. Epic

    Epic

    I'd rather see the emergence of a stronger third party. Libertarianism seems to be the best fit right now.

    Dem = socially liberal and fiscally liberal
    GOP = Socially and fiscally conservative
    Libertarian = Socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

    IDIOCY = socially conservative and fiscally liberal

    I pointed out that fourth group because that is precisely where the GOP has been headed. I can make a rational argument in favor of any of the first three, but no rational argument can be made in favor of the fourth. It would just be an epic failure compared to the other three and the party would self-destruct within a matter of only a couple elections.
     
    #56     Apr 17, 2012
  7. Epic

    Epic

    That would depend on whether the democrats still maintained control of the south. :D
     
    #57     Apr 17, 2012
  8. egalitarian in what sense? the word has seemingly contradictory meanings from the link you posted, and is ambiguous. This is just theoretical nonsense. Every dem and repub could be considered egalitarian. Friedman and Keynes are both egalitarian? Locke and Marx? I believe in natural rights, so did the founders of this country, our entire legal system is based off of these ideas. You can't believe in natural rights AND Marxism, which is essentially the assimilation of private property (a natural right). I also agree with the Friedman concepts of free markets, so I guess I'm egalitarian as well.. yet you and I do not share the same political or economic views so what good is it to describe oneself as egalitarian?

    I, and I think most people, view left and right as a quick way to describe an individual's economic stance, not form of govt. Laissez-faire is farthest right, keynes and socialism are somewhere in the middle or center-left, and Communism is the the farthest left. As far as social hierarchy, there has never been a system of govt which doesn't have one. I think it is naive to believe that such a system would be sustainable or even possible. in a free market the best able to compete are going to prosper the most.. what is more fair than that?

    Authoritarianism is a form of govt, not an economic system. Anarchy, not egalitarianism is its antithesis.
     
    #58     Apr 17, 2012
  9. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    So that 620,000 Americans could have lived.
    So that the US federal government's power could have been kept in check and or states rights been respected.

    Slavery would have died out within several decades anyway, without the war.
     
    #59     Apr 17, 2012
  10. This from the ignoranus who couldn't even parrot a central idea from a book by Stephen Hawking he claims to have read. :p
     
    #60     Apr 17, 2012