Hell Freezes Over...[ Hillary Clinton on O'Rielly ]

[karsen]

[quote freeradical]This whole business about classifying people into ideological squares is ridiculous, especially with respect to this "moderate category".

If you ask a focused question on any issue, people will either agree or disagree.

Example: Should gun owners be allowed to own magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds?

You either agree (48 states) or not (California and Massachusetts) . What does a "moderate" believe? Is there some "third" way?
A Moderate doesn't have to have some third way of handling an issue. Rather it's all of the issues as a whole that are considered. A Moderate could feel, in the example you gave, that it's perfectly fine to have a gun magazine that holds over 10 rounds – yet that same person may feel it's also perfectly okay for a woman to have the right to choose in abortion.

[Lux Interior]

You may own as many magazines that hold as many rounds as you please.



Just no guns.



Is that moderate?

[freeradical]

[quote karsen]

A Moderate doesn't have to have some third way of handling an issue. Rather it's all of the issues as a whole that are considered. A Moderate could feel, in the example you gave, that it's perfectly fine to have a gun magazine that holds over 10 rounds – yet that same person may feel it's also perfectly okay for a woman to have the right to choose in abortion.
Who says that's a "moderate" position? That's why I said that the word "moderate" is a political weasel word. My position is moderate, but now that other fellows position...

[guitarist]

"That's why I said that the word "moderate" is a political weasel word"

How so? As a label, it's as useful or non-useful as any other. It doesn't automatically signal cowardice, convenience, misdirection, or dishonesty. For some, it's a valid, accurate identifier.

Broadly speaking, moderate just means non-extremist, non-Ideologue. That's probably the majority of American voters.

I agree that labels are only useful up to a point. Most people, in reality, aren't easily classifiable. They may have primarily conservative or liberal views, but have those odd disqualifiers. Maybe a voter is a Red-Meat Republican, but for personal reasons he's pro-gun control, pro-affirmative action, or favors government regulation. Something that doesn't fit the profile. Or maybe someone's a Leftist-Liberal, but they're disinterested in environment issues, lean hawkish on foreign policy, or has unlikely views on abortion, or free trade.

There's a lot of micro-distinctions. Labels are easy, people are complicated.

[karsen]

[quote guitarist]"That's why I said that the word "moderate" is a political weasel word"

How so? As a label, it's as useful or non-useful as any other. It doesn't automatically signal cowardice, convenience, misdirection, or dishonesty. For some, it's a valid, accurate identifier.

Broadly speaking, moderate just means non-extremist, non-Ideologue. That's probably the majority of American voters.

I agree that labels are only useful up to a point. Most people, in reality, aren't easily classifiable. They may have primarily conservative or liberal views, but have those odd disqualifiers. Maybe a voter is a Red-Meat Republican, but for personal reasons he's pro-gun control, pro-affirmative action, or favors government regulation. Something that doesn't fit the profile. Or maybe someone's a Leftist-Liberal, but they're disinterested in environment issues, lean hawkish on foreign policy, or has unlikely views on abortion, or free trade.

There's a lot of micro-distinctions. Labels are easy, people are complicated.
You said it better than I could have.

[Kiva]

[quote kj]>>I don't think they've ever needed to lie to make a joke.

I don't know if I would say they're outright "lying", but I can't imagine taking it seriously either. Is it even supposed to be "the truth"? I would classify a lot of it as absurdity that gets closer to truth than it should, at times. kj.
you do know that viewers of The Daily Show are far more informed on current issues then their counterparts that watch Faux News?

It's a more educated audience and, in between the jokes, there is really good information. There's a reason Fox's attempt at copying TDS flopped: it wasn't funny. Making fun of hypocrisy is funny....when you're a liar making fun of the truth: not funny.

kiva

[kj]

>>you do know that viewers of The Daily Show are far more informed on current issues then their counterparts that watch Faux News?

So what? And I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why this thread is now about Faux News. What happened to O'Reilly?

TDS may contain many undisputed facts, but their _conclusions_ based on those facts are dubious, to say the least. Not to mention context is almost never considered. And, as I said, this fact is easily ignored because it's only supposed to be funny, not true. How many of these supposedly educated people realize they are being profoundly manipulated through comedy? Evidently, none. kj.

[Kiva]

hey KJ...any chance you could go over to TDS and pick out some clips that you feel people are being "manipulated through comedy"? I'm sure there are some and, I'm betting, they're the clips that aren't funny

anyway, i'd be interested to hear your side of a daily show clip or two....I do think that they sometimes don't play the whole context, and can mislead their viewers, but this is the exception rather than the rule....the opposite of which is seen on MSM outlets..

kiva

[kj]

The problem is that we'd have to agree what the truth actually is, which is probably not going to happen. You have to admit there's a fair amount of hyperbole that's given a pass because it's comedy. I don't know how a person would prove it influences people, but I believe it does, purely because I talk to people that repeat the stuff all the time. kj.

[mattkime]

We don't have to agree on the truth. The truth is the truth.

I'd love to hear a conservative play by play of the daily show.

Anyway, i'd rather be manipulated through comedy than fear.