BigIronCruiser wrote:
Neuffy wrote:
I think that I, as a mid-20s Canadian simply cannot comprehend the American political system. It's bizarre, actually. It's so polarized and venomous"
Really? Do you think Canadians weren't venemous in their treatment Ann Coulter? And there's no riff between "we speak French" Quebec and the rest of Canada? And what about Canada's version of the Three Stooges?
Ann Coulter has called for genocide, forcible religious conversion and mass murder. I'd hardly call the reaction venomous. If you're referring to the recent university speaking event that was canceled - she canceled it to make a point. She wanted to be able to say that she was censored (and since Free Speech is Freedom, Capital F, this is a horrible thing), so she self-censored when given the opportunity.
Oh, we've certainly got our issues. Never denied it. It's just that I understand them, or at least am not stunned by them. We do most things a bit more quietly, on a smaller scale. Again, I think it's likely that I simply don't get it because I haven't been around the last 40 or so years. I just don't understand how not agreeing with a political position is worthy of such derision - from either side. I should perhaps make this clear: If someone (a normal person, as opposed to a tv personality) is conservative, they will take flak from liberals, simply for being conservative. If someone is liberal, they will take flak from conservatives, simply for being liberal. Just doesn't make sense. It's like a matched set of violently evangelical religions.
BigIronCruiser wrote:
Neuffy wrote:
That said, associating yourself with Glenn Beck is a really, really unpleasant thing. The whole Fox/Glenn Beck/Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh/etc group is pretty nasty, and from an outside viewpoint is far more damaging and dangerous than any group of left-wing commentators.
Like them or not, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh make pretty good livings as polarizing figures. And if you think liberals aren't capable of expressing damaging and dangerous viewpoints, then you've never heard of Keith Olbermann and the other clowns on MSNBC.
You claim that Beck and others on Fox don't speak the truth. Can you prove it? Was Beck lying when he talked about Van Jones? Is he lying when he talks about the debt? Is he lying when he talks about the socialist agenda?[/quote]
That they make a good living at it doesn't make it right, at all. Also, while I'd agree that there are issues with Olbermann (and MSNBC in general), that doesn't justify Coulter/Limbaugh. Nobody here said they were good, or that they wanted to be associated with them. Like I said earlier, the automatic "If they have problems with extreme-right pundits, they're extreme-left radicals" is problematic.
It's not actually so much about truth - they do generally speak the "truth", particularly when they have a more important story that needs exposure. The manner in which they do so, however, isn't particularly honest. Now, the socialist agenda issue is a little more serious. It's made out that there is this sinister neo-Communist anti-American socialist agenda, while there is no corresponding conservative agenda, and if there is, it's certainly not anti-American. I'm uncertain as to whether I would call that truth.
Essentially, Fox is the side that is saying "Republicans can do no wrong, and all Democrat actions are wrong". That there are others saying the inverse doesn't make it any less of a problem.