Unfortunately, self-righteousness is a failing shared by all races and tax brackets. Rich people just have the power to enforce it.

---

I don't mind people having opinions. I don't even mind people spouting them off. It's when they make everyone else march to their drummer that I get ticked.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

What makes me angry is the fact that "Christians" in society go around killing and using God and Jesus as an excuse.

"Thou shalt not kill."
"He who is without sin may throw the first stone."

People who blow up abortion clinics (all to save lives no doubt *rolls eyes*) and beat up gays, and treat the unsaved as nothing more than trash to kick around, who threaten to kill wiccans, and spew racist filth from their mouths are pulling the world apart at the seams.

In my comics, I may poke fun at certain groups, but I'm just spewing what society spews at me.

It makes me sick to think that there are politicians in the world with such disgusting views like that, who claim to be good and go to church every day, and yet come right back out completely unclean and smear christian testimonies with dog crap.

I can't believe the number of psycho extremists that populate high positions in this world. Peice by peice they spread hatred and cause fighting. The only good ones who do the right thing and try to make a difference end up with a bullet in their head. And society and its extremist memebers will applaud. (hence, the comic I posted about 4 days ago.)

Until people learn (which they never will, all humans are stupid [including myself]), society will continue to suck.

^-^; If I offend, oh well.

---
I will rate you hard, and unendingly.

Look for the sunny side
Always for the sunny side
Look for the sunny side side of liiiiiiife!

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Unfortunately, self-righteousness is a failing shared by all races and tax brackets. Rich people just have the power to enforce it.

---

I don't mind people having opinions. I don't even mind people spouting them off. It's when they make everyone else march to their drummer that I get ticked.

---

Therein lies the paradox though. You're saying you don't want people to make everyone else march to their drummer. But making someone NOT make everyone else march to their drummer would, in this case, be making that person march to your drummer.

You can try to erase the paradox by adopting certain principles of equality, but at the end of the day, those principles are self-adopted. They're just another individual drum to try to get people to march to.

It's a logical loop I've been struggling with for awhile. If there is a non-adopted solution, it probably not only requires some finer understanding of the distinction between opinion and action, it might even require there to be a universal ethical system, which I find unlikely.

---
I ate a hooker half a bottle of knife.

quote:

---

The Moore thing is classic. While I do think he has some good points, some of his facts are off and he's a little... persistent. I'm sure Charlton Heston is a minute away from an anyeurysm. Which isn't a bad thing.

Then again, there's some website like MICHAEL MOORE IS A BIG FAT DOPE or something like that, like Bowling For the Truth, which says that Michael Moore is a racist who thinks that all black people are peacful. I e-mailed someone who was supporting the site stating that BFC was saying that local (and national) media tends to focus on petty crimes and not the big ones like Enron, and the like. His response:

"Don't tell me this, I have not even seen the movie."

Fuckin' dipshit cock monger of death.

---

Moore made a couple of good points, but his rocket to stardom, and the sudden dependence on him as the spokesperson for many people on the left makes me feel uneasy. People like him make his intelligent allies look bad, because he gets too much press. Yes, there is a problem in this country, but it's not just a gun problem. It's a violence problem. If the world threw away it's guns, knives, swords, bombs, viruses, and other weapons, they would still fight. There would still be rocks, sticks, and other objects of violence. Sure, getting rid of guns would curb the ease of violence in this world, but it wouldn't get rid of the violence itself. I'm not saying that increased violence isn't partially because of advanced weaponry, but there are other factors.

Moore's movie, to me, felt highly biased, and lacked real investigation. I won't try to convince anyone else of that, but it's my opinion.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

quote:

---

Therein lies the paradox though. You're saying you don't want people to make everyone else march to their drummer. But making someone NOT make everyone else march to their drummer would, in this case, be making that person march to your drummer.

You can try to erase the paradox by adopting certain principles of equality, but at the end of the day, those principles are self-adopted. They're just another individual drum to try to get people to march to.

It's a logical loop I've been struggling with for awhile. If there is a non-adopted solution, it probably not only requires some finer understanding of the distinction between opinion and action, it might even require there to be a universal ethical system, which I find unlikely.

---

Hmmmmmm... you may be right.

Okay everyone, in order to avoid this paradox you'll all have to start doing things my way. If you don't like it, move to Mars.

Thank you for your cooperation in advance.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Well of COURSE it was biased. It was a Moore movie. He isn't trying to show the other side's view any more than Fox news does. He's showing his side of things because he completely believes he is right.

And when he doesn't know (or think he knows) what is right he asks. He asked over and over what made America so homicidal. It couldn't be the guns. Lots of countries have guns. It's not the poverty. It's media. They all have that. Hell, I can't recall if he even answered that key question. He just put it out there.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

I mean not media. It's NOT media blah blah blah.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

quote:

---

Well of COURSE it was biased. It was a Moore movie. He isn't trying to show the other side's view any more than Fox news does. He's showing his side of things because he completely believes he is right.

And when he doesn't know (or think he knows) what is right he asks. He asked over and over what made America so homicidal. It couldn't be the guns. Lots of countries have guns. It's not the poverty. It's media. They all have that. Hell, I can't recall if he even answered that key question. He just put it out there.

---

That's just the thing. I don't complain about Moore or any other liberal-biased media most of the time. I don't complain about Fox either. I disagree with most of what is said by both. I just get a little tired of people constantly bashing people like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Riley, but getting all pissy when someone bashes Moore or the Dixie Chicks.

At least Moore and Hannity both delegate their political speeches to a medium tailored to those ends. The Dixie Chicks could have gone onto TV or done an interview in a magazine, or, hell, made an overzealous movie about their views, which clashed with their majority fanbase. They didn't though, they chose to use their fame and the medum given to them to sing (terribly, in my opinion) instead. I'm not saying this is immoral, or wrong, but I do think it was a little stupid of them.

Iron Maiden, on the other hand, used a different approach. Bruce Dickinson spoke out against the RIAA before doing a new song, which made the fans cheer and hollar. It was a *good* move. It gained more fans, rather than lost them.

I could care less about Moore and his little underground hit. It's when people cite him as a genious political advocate, and praise his movie that I begin to question the sanity of the individual. Why him and not some other, more well-spoken, intelligent, and conclusive democrat? There are many out there, hell, some even have radio shows on one of our local stations. There needs to be equal opposition to the conservative right, otherwise the balance is lost.

You did make a good point. Moore didn't even seem to try to answer his main question. Why pose it when you can't answer it? He did some things he wanted to do, and exposed Wal Mart for it's tremendous evils (selling guns and ammunition!), and harassed an old idiot who probably forgets where his teeth are most of the time, then marched up and paraded around with a kid disabled by guns (who looked pretty unhappy about doing it all) to try to get attention. He proved that you can get a gun for starting a bank account. Wow, that really scares me. An institution that has more information on you than the CIA does, selling you a registered gun in a state that, if I remember correctly, has ballistics data on all guns sold in the state.

Yes, waiting periods are good. Possibly not long enough though. Gun locks are great. Manditory gun locks, sure. Mandatory gun locks that end up costing as much as the damn gun? No. Gun lockers, hell yes.

Let's take a step further though. Have a kid? Don't have a lock on your gun? CHILD ENDANGERMENT.

I knew my dad had a gun. I never could find it though. This is a kid who found presents he didn't know were at the house yet. I'm not saying that gun safety isn't important, but I just think some people are going overboard. I'm planning on saving up and getting a Colt 45 sometime soon. Do I want it for protection? Nope. Hunting? Nope. I want it because I like guns. I like firing them. I like being able to blow a hole in a target so big you can stick your foot through it. Maybe it's overcompensation, but if the whole overcompensation issue is true, why do I drive a 4 banger Ford Escort? I thought I drove it because I liked fuel efficiency. But some would say I drive it because I have a massive wang.

I just want one working new gun, a new Colt 45. I want to collect old guns, too. I want a Mauser, a Luger, a Walther, a BAR (disabled, of course), a Thompson (again, disabled), and many others. They don't have to all work. Hell, I'd be fine if none of them worked. Those are pieces of history. Genuine articles hold more stories about war and peace than any book does.

But then again, most of you probably thing I just wish I had a bigger weenie. Maybe I should just get a 22.

I gotta find out where that bank that gives away free guns is!

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

[Click to view comic: '"Freedom of Religion" PFFFT! BAHAHAH! Yeah...right....']

---
I will rate you hard, and unendingly.

Nice :)

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

Sigh...

Sean Hannity and Bill O'Riley pretend to be news delivery. Moore is a film director who is trying to make only his point and no other. He is not a news source. And, as if this needed saying, neither are the Dixie Chicks.

Do you see the difference? I mean, I call Limbaugh a pill popping hypocrite ass, but I at least appreciate that he isn't trying to come off as a news source. What he gives isn’t cloaked under some fair and balanced malarkey.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

I was really more referring to Hannity's talk show, now his TV show, but anyway... :)

As far as any of that goes, I'm more worried about the teachers in colleges than anyone who has a talk show on a news station. A political bent on a news station is annoying. A political bent in a classroom is life-changing.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

I definitely think there's a leftist media bias in america. The two meccas of media are New York and California. Both of those states are also two of the more liberal states in our country. The regional bias affects the fairness of reporting, imo.

Two other things come to mind to collaborate this. One is a poll they conducted of newscasters and journalists a couple of years back that showed that something like 78 or 82% of them were registered democrats. The other was when I was listening to an abc online live audio broadcast of the 2000 presidential election. It was broadcasting exactly what the tv show was, but audio only. The only difference was that when the tv show cut over to commercial, the online audio didn't. You heard all the behind the scenes stuff of people talking. And what were they saying? Things like "I hope WE win florida," and "Oh, WE'VE definitely got New York." And each time, for the hour or so the show ran, "WE" always referred to Gore.

---
I ate a hooker half a bottle of knife.

Well, I don't think there's a solid media bias, because it seems that for every station like CBS and such, there is a station like Fox News. It's just that to the democrats, there seems to be more right-wing bias, because it's more outward. left-wing bias is not apparent, it just kinda hides behind big words and "equal coverage". The media isn't fair and balanced, and no one said it had to be.

We all wish it were, but it's not going to happen.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one, as the old saying goes. Rupert Murdock and the other few who own the press are not liberal. The more the media centralizes the less open it is, and the more arch-conservative. I say arch, because I have a great deal of respect for TRUE conservative ideals. I don't see many GOP practitioners (or media holders) with conservative values. I see radical fascists. Just look at the crazy budgets and tax breaks going on these days. Conservative my pink hole.

Of course, the real conservatives are finally getting sick of it and speaking up thank goodness. Maybe in another 30 years people will value fiscal responsibility and human rights in the same party again, like in the days of Lincoln. That was a nice 10 or 15 years.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

imo: Regional bias + Reporter bias >> Owner bias

---
I ate a hooker half a bottle of knife.

quote:

---

Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one, as the old saying goes. Rupert Murdock and the other few who own the press are not liberal. The more the media centralizes the less open it is, and the more arch-conservative. I say arch, because I have a great deal of respect for TRUE conservative ideals. I don't see many GOP practitioners (or media holders) with conservative values. I see radical fascists. Just look at the crazy budgets and tax breaks going on these days. Conservative my pink hole.

Of course, the real conservatives are finally getting sick of it and speaking up thank goodness. Maybe in another 30 years people will value fiscal responsibility and human rights in the same party again, like in the days of Lincoln. That was a nice 10 or 15 years.

---

What do you see as true conservative values? I agree with you that the GOP is lacking them, but I'd like to know what your take on what they are is.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

Oh Lordy lordy. Let's take for a minute the fact that during the Iraqi conflict, there was NO criticism of the presidential actions on any major news channels, especially not CNN, which used to be considered liberal because it is owned by Time Warner, which used to be chaired by Ted Turner.

Ok, so add to that the fact that now, as the election date draws closer, and the Iraqi hostilities are 'over', there is a lot of criticism of Bush popping up. Even the Daily Show didn't criticize the Bush Administration during the hostilities.

Every fucking channel rallied behind the goddamn GOP juggernaut and the propaganda machines were cranking on full power.

Now, Democrats suck, I completely concur. I disagree with the Dems as much as I do with the Repubs, and as far as I am concerned they are two hands of the same evil fucking beast. The right hand, the GOP, is stronger, meaner, less caring, and used more often. The left hand, the Dems, are weak, used less and riddled with nervous tics.

If I was to make an objective opinion, I would say that the media is overwhelmingly right-leaning. The Democrats are villified more often, and even during times of crisis, Dem presidents tend to get cornholed in the press, or at least left alone a lot less than the Repub ones.

The reason the media is Repulbican (which is steadily becoming synonymous with the Right) is because, quite simply, the majority of big businessmen are Republican. The media is run by big businesses, and if you did not FINALLY grasp that concept after the recent ruling on media centralization, you have not been paying attention.

You might think that the New York and other such regions have a leftist bias, but how many of you live in New York? I sat and watched local news during the Afghan and Iraqi conflict and I heard nothing but ass-sucking praise for the GOP poster-boy. And I AM in New York.

When it comes to 'objectively reporting the facts', the media is perfect at that, as long as the facts support a particularly sensitive cause.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Well, Mikey, I agree with you. Been saying that all along. Dems and GOPs are fulla shit.

But large portions of us *do* live in large metro areas like New York, NY. I live in Northern California. We get the boiled down, boring, low-key, few-facts version of the liberal media the major centers here put out. I live near a college town, so more than just getting fed down here, we get a lot of it. We have the CN&R and the SN&R. Same publication, different cities. CN&R is for Chico, while SN&R, Sacramento. News & Review. The problem is, it's a gigantic organization with tons of cash, so they can afford to give away their papers, fill them with 60-70% ads, and dump them on us. I have no issues with this, nor their bias. I'm simply stating the facts. It's a liberal-biased paper with a slightly unfair advantage over the more moderate, local papers.

The funny part is, the paper is preaching to the choir here in Chico.

The media sucks, and you have to piece together parts from different sources to see the real story.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

I would disagree with everything you just said. And I also consider myself objective. I'm definitely not affiliated with any party, and I was raised in a household where my mom registered democrat and my dad republican, not because either identified with either party, but because both wanted the literature from both of the parties to make up their mind. I even took a test the other day that was to tell me which presidential candidate best represents me. It came out to a 47% tie between Bush and Dean.

If nothing else, this teaches us to be wary of using the word objective. In reality, we all filter what we see through what we already know/believe.

---
I ate a hooker half a bottle of knife.

1. Resist change, even if it will benefit you personally. Fear change. Believe that there is something about change that can hurt you even if you don't see it. This view is not always a bad thing.

2. Save money. Spend less than you take in. Encourage your populous to do the same.

3. Make solid friends of a few influential nations and then stand by them come thick or thin.

These are the qualities I admire in my conservative friends. Okay, sometimes the first one gets on my nerves. But half the time or more they are right. Changing things just to move forward, be it trying new drugs or speeding up the destruction of the environment can be a bad thing.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

The best statement so far in this discussion. Worded perfectly.

As do I.

I have no party affiliation, not even Independant. Although Independant can technically mean just about anything outside of the two-party system, I really don't agree 100% with anyone. I also grew up in a mixed household, with my mother being a Repube-lickin' and my father was the Democrat. They've changed philosophies over the years, virtually switching them, but they are still registered the same.
I have no affinity for the Democrats, nor do I for the Republicans. As objectivity goes, I don't see how you can get any more objective than that. I've seen shit go down, and it's affected my political views. I see in the New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and other localities' news that I have witnessed really shredded into the Dems, and I noticed a distinct lack of the same practices being applied to the Republicans. I don't really understand why, because both parties need to fall off the face of the planet.

Yuck. I'd pick neither. I'm scared of Dean and deathly afraid of Bush. I'd go with Kucinich.

That means that there truly is no genuine objectivity.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

1. Resist change, even if it will benefit you personally. Fear change. Believe that there is something about change that can hurt you even if you don't see it. This view is not always a bad thing.

2. Save money. Spend less than you take in. Encourage your populous to do the same.

3. Make solid friends of a few influential nations and then stand by them come thick or thin.

These are the qualities I admire in my conservative friends. Okay, sometimes the first one gets on my nerves. But half the time or more they are right. Changing things just to move forward, be it trying new drugs or speeding up the destruction of the environment can be a bad thing.

---

I agree with you on this, though the third one seems a bit universal to me.

Liberals on the other hand seem to embody opposites of the first two. Embrace change, even when it may be detrimental, create movement of money by taxing higher, and spending more. I see it this way: Liberals are best during peace time, to help care for the needs of the people at home, and keep up good relations for the external world. Conservatives are better during war time, because traditionally, conservatives have already served in the military, and are supposed to be better leaders. Never works out that way these days though.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

I think that's true.

Even with disinterest, which usually helps objectivity, people still filter what they see through the patterns of life they already know and understand.

---
I ate a hooker half a bottle of knife.