John Stossel's opinion of liberals and the media

[RMNIXON]

The funny part is that Stossel became famous as a Liberal Big Business basher on the news. They left media loved him! Then he turned the same amount of attention and fact finding against government waste and corruption. And they turned on him in a red hot minute. He saw how these people acted! I would not have thrown such a blanket on the behvior of all liberals, but some do indeed think and behave just as he says they do. They are not really liberals in the sence of their thinking. They are more like hard left intollerant ideologues who cling to the "liberal" label because they think it makes them honest intellectuals which they are not!

[lew]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Wasn't the FCC founded by the religious right? A Christian didn't want to hear something on the radio. Conservatives are also the ones foaming at the mouth when someone burns a flag.

FCC was founded by Big Brother Government - supported by both Democrat liberals and Republican conservatives.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Wasn't the FCC founded by the religious right? A Christian didn't want to hear something on the radio. Conservatives are also the ones foaming at the mouth when someone burns a flag.

Yeah, I could be wrong about the FCC thing. It just seems to coincide with Hilarity Clinton's battle with the video game industry, along with all of the other censorship that is backed by the "progressive" () liberals.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by lew

I would agree except for the bold.

Conservatives bitch if someone curses or mocks God on tv.

I don't really see that as being a big conservative thing. I see that as more of a vocal Evangelical thing. For the most part, I don't see conservatives getting pissy about it as much as I see liberals trying to "protect the children" from all the horror!

[Diamond Cross]

Info on the FCC:

History:

The FCC was established in 1934 by the Communications Act to assert control over the growing field of communications. In its first year, the FCC regulated a broadcast business which then consisted of 623 radio stations and a telephone industry with 14 million phones. The industry has grown to more than 25,000 TV and radio stations in 2001, and more than 192 million phones in 2000. The percentage of households with more than one phone line increased from 3 percent in 1988 to 29 percent in 1999.
Key Issues:

Since Congress deregulated the telecommunications industry in 1996, the former Bell companies and upstart phone companies have been at war, with the FCC as regulatory referee, over regional long distance business. The FCC must also identify slices of the radio spectrum that mobile telephone companies can use to meet the growing demand to transmit calls and Internet data.
Who's in Charge:

The FCC's five commissioners are appointed by the president. No more than three can be from the same political party.
• Chairman Michael Powell, Republican, was nominated to the commission by President Clinton and named chairman by President Bush. His term ends June 30, 2002. Read a Post profile of Powell.
• Jonathan Adelstein, Democrat, Appointed by President Bush in November 2002. Term ended June 30, 2003. Whoever wins the presidential election in 2004 would have to renominate Adelstein for a full term before Congress adjourns this year in order for him to keep his seat.
• Kathleen Q. Abernathy, Republican, nominated by Bush. Term ends June 30, 2004.
• Michael J. Copps, Democrat, nominated by Bush. Term expires June 30, 2005.
• Kevin Martin, Republican. Nominated by Bush and confirmed by the Senate; to be sworn in July 2. Term ends June 30, 2006.
On the Web:

• List of key issues for the FCC
• Consumer complaints
• FCC guide to the 1996 Telecommunications Act


FROM:

Federal Communications Commission (TechNews.com)

[motivez]

Originally Posted by lew

That's EXACTLY what being tolerant means! If you agree with someone else, you're not being tolerant of them - you're agreeing with them! Being tolerant means to tolerate those with opinions different or opposite of yours! Tolerance doesn't mean you have to like what they're saying, but to say that you can be a tolerant person but not "tolerate" other people's intolerance doesn't even make any sense.

No it doesn't. Being tolerant of intolerance makes no sense from a logical standpoint.

The idea that tolerance must have no limits is completely irrational, but that's exactly what this guy is trying to make his point with, and unfortunately for him, he fails miserably to come up with anything coherent.

Embracing other cultures and those who are different from you makes you a tolerant person. Embracing someone who spews racism or bigotry does not, and it goes against everything a tolerant and accepting, generally socially liberal individual would stand for.

I'm honestly surprised this guy actually has an audience reading his drivel.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Info on the FCC:

History:

The FCC was established in 1934 by the Communications Act to assert control over the growing field of communications. In its first year, the FCC regulated a broadcast business which then consisted of 623 radio stations and a telephone industry with 14 million phones. The industry has grown to more than 25,000 TV and radio stations in 2001, and more than 192 million phones in 2000. The percentage of households with more than one phone line increased from 3 percent in 1988 to 29 percent in 1999.
Key Issues:

Since Congress deregulated the telecommunications industry in 1996, the former Bell companies and upstart phone companies have been at war, with the FCC as regulatory referee, over regional long distance business. The FCC must also identify slices of the radio spectrum that mobile telephone companies can use to meet the growing demand to transmit calls and Internet data.
Who's in Charge:

The FCC's five commissioners are appointed by the president. No more than three can be from the same political party.
• Chairman Michael Powell, Republican, was nominated to the commission by President Clinton and named chairman by President Bush. His term ends June 30, 2002. Read a Post profile of Powell.
• Jonathan Adelstein, Democrat, Appointed by President Bush in November 2002. Term ended June 30, 2003. Whoever wins the presidential election in 2004 would have to renominate Adelstein for a full term before Congress adjourns this year in order for him to keep his seat.
• Kathleen Q. Abernathy, Republican, nominated by Bush. Term ends June 30, 2004.
• Michael J. Copps, Democrat, nominated by Bush. Term expires June 30, 2005.
• Kevin Martin, Republican. Nominated by Bush and confirmed by the Senate; to be sworn in July 2. Term ends June 30, 2006.
On the Web:

• List of key issues for the FCC
• Consumer complaints
• FCC guide to the 1996 Telecommunications Act


FROM:

Federal Communications Commission (TechNews.com)

right, the FCC was initially created to negotiate lines and frequencies.. not be the moral parent of the nation.

[lew]

Originally Posted by motivez

No it doesn't. Being tolerant of intolerance makes no sense from a logical standpoint.

The idea that tolerance must have no limits is completely irrational, but that's exactly what this guy is trying to make his point with, and unfortunately for him, he fails miserably to come up with anything coherent.

Embracing other cultures and those who are different from you makes you a tolerant person. Embracing someone who spews racism or bigotry does not, and it goes against everything a tolerant and accepting, generally socially liberal individual would stand for.

I'm honestly surprised this guy actually has an audience reading his drivel.

That is completely incorrect.


from dictionary.com

a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.


Having a fair, objective, and permissive attitude towards the KKK (a group whose opnions is differ from yours) for example is being tolerant. Being intolerant of the KKK is exactly that - intolerance. Being tolerant means to tolerate ALL views and opinions. Again, tolerate doesn't mean you like or agree with what they say.

[motivez]

Sorry, but that's not what it means. The idea that tolerance means complete tolerance of everything including racism, bigotry, etc.. is not something anyone who considers themselves a tolerant person practices.

And that's why his point is completely invalid.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

No it doesn't. Being tolerant of intolerance makes no sense from a logical standpoint.

The idea that tolerance must have no limits is completely irrational, but that's exactly what this guy is trying to make his point with, and unfortunately for him, he fails miserably to come up with anything coherent.

Embracing other cultures and those who are different from you makes you a tolerant person.

I agree with that opener!

But what about when those "other" cultures are full of even worse bigotry and racism in their religious beliefs and political life?

It sounds more like a case of judgement and then suspend judgment to me?

[RMNIXON]

Stossel:

"The way that today’s liberals define themselves doesn’t hold much appeal for me either. The Democrats push destructive policies on behalf of unions, trial lawyers, and other special-interest groups that feed them money. Liberalism has come to mean spending more on everything -speech police, failed poverty programs that reward dependency, a bigger nanny state telling us we cannot eat fatty foods, workplace rules that stifle opportunity and absurd environmental regulations.

I like the idea of personal freedom that is often put forward by the Democrats, but they never seem to connect that with personal responsibility."




We all probably have some failings along the Nanny State way of working out problems. But modern liberals play a major part of the push. And worse their are people and organizations who soak up the benefits that have more on their minds than the public good!

[motivez]

I just completely reject the idea that the modern concept of tolerance as it applies to social liberals somehow equals infinite tolerance regardless of circumstance.

Most social liberals are tolerant when it comes to differences that are inclusive, ie; gay rights, minority rights, freedom of religion etc.. however they reject differences that are exclusionary, bigotry, racism, that same freedom of religion when it attempts to restrict rights of groups, etc.

It makes for a nice straw man for the purpose of his article, but in real life, I don't believe it's implemented.. and I don't think it's a valid point.

Maybe that makes what I'm trying to say more clear.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

I just completely reject the idea that the modern concept of tolerance as it applies to social liberals somehow equals infinite tolerance regardless of circumstance.

Most social liberals are tolerant when it comes to differences that are inclusive, ie; gay rights, minority rights, freedom of religion etc.. however they reject differences that are exclusionary, bigotry, racism, that same freedom of religion when it attempts to restrict rights of groups, etc.

It makes for a nice straw man for the purpose of his article, but in real life, I don't believe it's implemented.. and I don't think it's a valid point.

Maybe that makes what I'm trying to say more clear.

by your definition of 'tolerance', you are only tolerant of those things you agree with. So that would make you non-tolerant of much of the world's population

[lew]

Originally Posted by motivez

Sorry, but that's not what it means. The idea that tolerance means complete tolerance of everything including racism, bigotry, etc.. is not something anyone who considers themselves a tolerant person practices.

And that's why his point is completely invalid.

YES, that is EXACTLY what it means.



From the immortal South Park episode "The Death Camp of Tolerance":


Tolerant, but not stupid! Look, just
because you have to tolerate something
doesn't mean you have to approve of
it! If you had to like it, it'd be called
the Museum of Acceptance! "Tolerate"
means you're just putting up with it!
You tolerate a crying child sitting
next to you on the airplane or, or you
tolerate a bad cold. It can still piss
you off! Jesus Tapdancing Christ!


What you're describing is not tolerance - it's accepting something that may be different, but still considered "good." To tolerate something means to accept something that can be considered "bad."

[lew]

Originally Posted by motivez

I just completely reject the idea that the modern concept of tolerance as it applies to social liberals somehow equals infinite tolerance regardless of circumstance.

Most social liberals are tolerant when it comes to differences that are inclusive, ie; gay rights, minority rights, freedom of religion etc.. however they reject differences that are exclusionary, bigotry, racism, that same freedom of religion when it attempts to restrict rights of groups, etc.

It makes for a nice straw man for the purpose of his article, but in real life, I don't believe it's implemented.. and I don't think it's a valid point.

Maybe that makes what I'm trying to say more clear.

But it is not a straw man. It is entirely accurate.

When you say social liberals "tolerate" gay rights, minority rights, etc - that's not being tolerant. That's accepting and even supporting those things. That is not tolerance.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

I just completely reject the idea that the modern concept of tolerance as it applies to social liberals somehow equals infinite tolerance regardless of circumstance.

Most social liberals are tolerant when it comes to differences that are inclusive, ie; gay rights, minority rights, freedom of religion etc.. however they reject differences that are exclusionary, bigotry, racism, that same freedom of religion when it attempts to restrict rights of groups, etc.

It makes for a nice straw man for the purpose of his article, but in real life, I don't believe it's implemented.. and I don't think it's a valid point.

Maybe that makes what I'm trying to say more clear.

I disagree. I've always taken tolerance to mean the standard definition:

1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : ENDURANCE, FORTITUDE, STAMINA
2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : TOLERATION
3 : the allowable deviation from a standard; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece

In order for something to be "tolerated" you have to disagree or not even like it. Otherwise it's called acceptance.

I don't accept the KKK, but I tolerate them. I don't tolerate gays, I accept them.

Tolerance describes your willingness to allow something you don't like/disagree with/or is against the norm.

[nbiggershaft]

Funny the KKK is the number one example of what the liberals won't tolerate here considering the your guys ultimate liberal enemy, the ACLU, is the only major organization to defend the KKK in a long time.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Yes, it is. If the KKK is assembling in a peaceful manner, then there's no reason to violate their right to protest, as outlined in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

This is the biggest problem I have with American liberals (in general). They don't see how hypocritical their position is. They want to protect freedom of speech, as long as it's speech that coincides with their world view. If it doesn't coincide with their world view, then not only should it not be protected, but it ought to be banned and subject to extraordinary punishment, considering the crime. It's completely ridiculous.

Hardly. When you tolerate intolerance you are lending it credence. Then you are intolerant by association.

Why didn't you answer the part about the man who raped and murdered your mother? Would you hate him and want to see him in jail or dead? I guess that would make you intolerant of him then, right?

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

The fact that it's the progressive liberals that want to limit our freedom of speech is only indicative of how intolerant they, themselves, actually are. Conservatives aren't the ones fighting violence in video games. Conservatives aren't the ones crying when someone on TV has a potty mouth. Conservatives aren't the ones foaming at the mouth when a guy flirts with a girl in a manner that she deems "inappropriate." Conservatives just don't get their panties in a knot when someone calls someone else a bad name.

Conservatives are all over that shit too. Don't fool yourself.