What is so wrong with being right wing?

timgaul said:
I disagree completely. The DA is definitely still moderate left wing - just by the mere definition of its goals and policies. Just because you have a more more left wing party does not shift your position. The ANC considers the DA more right that they are, but that by no means makes the DA right wing.
Click to expand...

You are assuming an absolute definition of what is ‘right’ and ‘left’. I am maintaining that those values are relative to the government benchmark (in SA it’s the ANC). The DA (then PFP) were anti the Nationalist government - Black Sash, End Conscription Campaign, homburg hated morons dictating to the electorate, etc. (left). They were taken-in by the ‘rainbow nation’ rhetoric (like me) and were embarrassed and humiliated by the result (like me). Their platform became anticrime, pro service delivery, etc. The ANC appeared to condone these things and be totally ineffectual in combating them. They became anti ANC (right according to the ANC). So they were anti the apartheid government and considered commie-loving lefties. Now they are anti the ANC government and considered right wing reactionaries longing for apartheid. Lose/lose.
 
Just come across this article which should fit into this thread quite nicely.

How I gained respect for the Tea-baggers
Posted: 12 Feb 2010 11:16 PM PST
I’ve long wondered how conservative tea-baggers can scream and yell about our government and socialism, while at the same thing taking pretty much everything that Fox News tells them on faith, even when it is a blatant lie and goes against real conservative values. A recent survey says that 74% of Republican-leaning Americans say that they trust Fox News.
So I was shocked, shocked I tell you, when at the Constitutional Coalition conference last weekend some conservatives pointed out the hypocrisy of Fox News being the “trusted” news source for conservatives who claim to love America. After all, the owner of Fox News is Rupert Murdoch, from Australia.
But the real kicker is that the next largest shareholder in News Corp — the parent company of Fox News — is Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. Speaking at the conference, Joseph Farah, the publisher of the far-right WorldNetDaily, pointed out:
There’s a flaw, a real compromise in Fox that you need to understand. And if you care about national security, you especially need to be attentive to it. And that is that Fox News parent company is News Corp has a significant ownership by a Saudi prince that many of you will be familiar with because right after 9/11 this prince very famously offered Rudolph Giuliani a big multi-million dollar check to rebuild and Giuliani told him to stick the check where the sun don’t shine because this guy was basically blaming America for what happened on 9/11. Well this guy owns a very significant percentage of the News Corp and has let the world know that he can get things taken off Fox News when he finds them objectionable and has in the past. And I really believe this is really dangerous for America.
Another speaker at the conference, conservative author Brigitte Gabriel, pointed out that when Alwaleed was interviewed on Fox News by Neil Cavuto, it was like a “darling high school reunion”. ““All of the sudden, Neil Cavuto is interviewing him like a buddy-buddy because he is the boss.” During the interview, Alwaleed made his positions clear: he wants the US to remain dependent on Saudi Arabian oil and he opposes financial reforms (Alwaleed owns a $4.3 billion stake in Citigroup, which spent millions lobbying against bank reforms last year).
Since Alwaleed has bragged about getting news stories on Fox changed, it should not be a surprise to anyone that Fox News is the main cheerleader for the “Drill Baby Drill” mentality that opposes moving American away from a fossil-fuel dependent economy.
Of course, Fox News is not the only media giant that is compromised by its owners. Alwaleed also has a big stake in Disney, who own the ABC TV network.
So, will conservatives wake up to the fact that they are being used, and turn some of their anger against their oppressive (and even foreign) overlords? Not if Fox News can help it.
http://politicalirony.com/2010/02/13/respect-for-the-tea-baggers/
 
Palimino said:
You are assuming an absolute definition of what is ‘right’ and ‘left’. I am maintaining that those values are relative to the government benchmark (in SA it’s the ANC). The DA (then PFP) were anti the Nationalist government - Black Sash, End Conscription Campaign, homburg hated morons dictating to the electorate, etc. (left). They were taken-in by the ‘rainbow nation’ rhetoric (like me) and were embarrassed and humiliated by the result (like me). Their platform became anticrime, pro service delivery, etc. The ANC appeared to condone these things and be totally ineffectual in combating them. They became anti ANC (right according to the ANC). So they were anti the apartheid government and considered commie-loving lefties. Now they are anti the ANC government and considered right wing reactionaries longing for apartheid. Lose/lose.
Click to expand...

But there is - its very clearly laid out, you cannot be both left and right at the same time? :confused: A party is defined by its policies, not it's relation to the ruling party - which you assume it to be.
 
Last edited:
Fazda said:
Just come across this article which should fit into this thread quite nicely.
Click to expand...

Well, any intelligent person knows Fox news is far from impartial. Unfortunately politics is a dirty game, and you have to get your hands dirty if you want to play.
 
timgaul said:
Well, any intelligent person knows Fox news is far from impartial. Unfortunately politics is a dirty game, and you have to get your hands dirty if you want to play.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that it is good to lie and cheat just because you are a politician?

And by your statement, it would appear as if a large percentage of the American "right" are not intelligent, as they think Faux News is the best?
 
timgaul said:
Well, any intelligent person knows Fox news is far from impartial. Unfortunately politics is a dirty game, and you have to get your hands dirty if you want to play.
Click to expand...

and any objective individual knows neither is CNN, Al Jazeera, RT, MSNBC etc...
 
Fazda said:
LOL! Standard answer from those who think Faux News rocks!!
Click to expand...

Really where did I say that. You're the ideologue here thinking only big bad FOX News fills people's heads with crap.
 
Fazda said:
You said it when you started pointing fingers at all of the Faux opposition.
Click to expand...

ROFL at the warped logic.

Fazda's idea of objectivity:o

[video=youtube;UYKQJ4-N7LI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI[/video]
 
Last edited:
Alan said:
ROFL at the warped logic.

Fazda's idea of objectivity:o

[video=youtube;UYKQJ4-N7LI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI[/video]
Click to expand...

Talk about warped logic if you try and tie that video to my idea of objectivity! :rolleyes:
 
timgaul said:
But there is - its very clearly laid out, you cannot be both left and right at the same time? :confused: A party is defined by its policies, not it's relation to the ruling party - which you assume it to be.
Click to expand...

An ultra-right party may consider a simple right-wing party left of its position (relative to it’s posture). A moderate party would consider the simple right-wing party, right. It can be both left and right at the same time. Besides, it would be right relative to the government benchmark (which defines centre). You don’t have to be fascist to be right and communist to be left.

Where would the Northern European countries fall in your absolute definition? They have a socialistic dimension but they are not communist. They have a fascist dimension but they are not fascist.
 
Fazda said:
Talk about warped logic if you try and tie that video to my idea of objectivity! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So now you don't consider that objective journalism? :erm:
 
Last edited:
Alan said:
and any objective individual knows neither is CNN, Al Jazeera, RT, MSNBC etc...
Click to expand...

That may be, but the advantage of stations like Al Jazeera and RT is that they are not in lockstep (like the rest of the West) with America. Views different from the gospel according to America are entertained (and vice-versa of course). Stuff that the USA would rather keep silent about. They have to get American spin-doctors to do damage control. Makes for a healthier media environment IMO.
 
Palimino said:
That may be, but the advantage of stations like Al Jazeera and RT is that they are not in lockstep (like the rest of the West) with America. Views different from the gospel according to America are entertained (and vice-versa of course). Stuff that the USA would rather keep silent about. They have to get American spin-doctors to do damage control. Makes for a healthier media environment IMO.
Click to expand...

agreed but then you need access to both sides. With DSTV you don't for example. BBC, CNN International, SKY, Al Jazeera, ETV News and RT all basically subscribe to the same bias. SKY is probably the most balanced if sensationalist and RT the most biased.
 
Alan said:
agreed but then you need access to both sides. With DSTV you don't for example. BBC, CNN International, SKY, Al Jazeera, ETV News and RT all basically subscribe to the same bias. SKY is probably the most balanced if sensationalist and RT the most biased.
Click to expand...

Nix on SKY (it’s Republican, owned by the same as Fox News [Rupert Murdoch?]) The most balanced is probably the BBC. RT and Al Jazeera are biased (agreed) but generally only about Russia (RT) and the Middle East (Al Jazeera). They both want to shaft America so you would get the stuff that embarrasses the US. If Britain was involved in excessive dirt, I would be wary of BBC objectivity as well (patriotism). RT and Al Jazeera might be better sources for British dirt.
 
Palimino said:
Nix on SKY (it’s Republican, owned by the same as Fox News [Rupert Murdoch?]) The most balanced is probably the BBC. RT and Al Jazeera are biased (agreed) but generally only about Russia (RT) and the Middle East (Al Jazeera). They both want to shaft America so you would get the stuff that embarrasses the US. If Britain was involved in excessive dirt, I would be wary of BBC objectivity as well (patriotism). RT and Al Jazeera might be better sources for British dirt.
Click to expand...

BBC is the most politically correct of them all. They've been caught out lying and defrauding so many times it's a joke. As for SKY being Republican lol how then do you explain James Rubin a rabid Dem and now an "informal" adviser to Obama hosting a show?

RT is the worst. They regularly interview conspiracy theorist nutjobs basically anybody no matter how insane.
 
Yeah like Noam Chomsky :erm:

Still waiting for your opinion on that MSNBC clip.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X