[Willie Green]

courtesy ping

[dirtboy]

t then, will you really be able to effectively argue with someone of opposing beliefs?

My goal is not to be able to argue effectively with liberals - that has already been proven to be a pointless endeavor, because liberals have no interest in honest debate. My goal is to use conservative media to make liberals politically irrelevant.

[sinkspur]

Even if Torie were not a sophomore, she would still be sophomoric.

[Support Free Republic]

---

	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-

[telebob]

"Conservatives: If you want, you can listen only to Limbaugh, subscribe only to The Weekly Standard, surf only www.freerepublic.com and read only Ann Coulter."

Well, the thing about FreeRepublic is you get the liberal viewpoint as well as the conservative. Unlike what libs expose themselves to.

Here you have the opportunity to sort out the facts for yourself.

Plus, it's really fun to slam liberals and lefties. Freepers are a hoot. Lefties are on a permanent life bummer.

[freedumb2003]

A child arrives at the obvious and has the temerity to publish it. This article is like publishing the discovery that water runs downhill unless you put mechanisms in place to do otherwise.

Poor kid doesn't even know enough to be embarrassed.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Conservatives: If you want, you can listen only to Limbaugh, subscribe only to The Weekly Standard,surf only www.freerepublic.com and read only Ann Coulter.

But then, will you really be able to effectively argue with someone of opposing beliefs?

1. As Ann Coulter notes inSlander, conservatives live in a sea of liberal media - we couldn't keep from being exposed to the most agressive form of liberal propaganda - "objective" journalists who are objecive wise in their own conceit - without living inside a bubble. As your

   In theory, all journalism is completely without bias. A reporter, whether in print, on-air or onscreen, is supposed to approach a story like a juror, without his or her mind completely made up.

   In reality, though, it is impossible to be completely impartial about something . . .

   For journalists, even deciding what exactly to report on is a judgment call -- what's more important, the death of a soldier in Iraq or the success of a new school for girls in Afghanistan?

   aptly points out.
2. Can Freepers tear apart a "Barf Alert" posting or a troll posting in minutes? You bet.

[neefer]

By shutting out other vantage points and listening only to what you agree with....

Hmm. He must not understand what the (Barf Alert!) notation is. And doesn't he listen to all the liberals phoning into Rush's show?

[Fenris6]

"Conservative and liberal hosts each say that their own audiences are smarter, better informed and more perceptive than the competition's listeners. They constantly stroke the listener's ego. They call you smart and informed because you share their opinions, so you want to listen more. After all, everyone wants to be called smart."

She misses a key point: I listen to conservative talk radio because (before FOX) I couldn't GET conservative opinion in the media - thats what led to AM politcal talk shows in the first place. I rountinely read the Wash Post and NYT, and they routinely left out key facts and counterpoints that weakened the "purpose" (ahem) of their story. Its called "censorship by ommision". If journalists were truly obejective and unbiased, there would never have been a need for an alternative media.

[lowbridge]

But then, will you really be able to effectively argue with someone of opposing beliefs? After all, you need to establish common ground to conduct a fruitful debate -- and I don't consider either Moore or Coulter common ground.

I find this article a bit irritationg. What makes her think that we've been insulating ourselves to one point of view? Ever since I first got internet access back in 1996-7. I have been doing nothing but debate liberals and expose myself to their point of view. I cant escape them on the internet even if I wanted to. I've argued with them in chat rooms, message boards, usenet newsgroups, blogs, etc.

All they know is what the Michael Moore's and Al Franken's of the world tells them. Those guys come up with some new book or article, and the liberals are breathless with excitement as they post it everywhere they go on the net and email to each other endlessly untill someone like me comes along and takes apart piece by piece their newfound "evidence" of Republican wrongdoing.

Their fellow liberals emailed it to them, therefore it had to be true!

[TC Rider]

I can't stand country music, political strategist Karl Rove and chemistry.

I'm always fascinated by the left's kneejerk hatred of Karl Rove.

I couldn't come up with one Rove quote if my life depended on it. He's not out in front screaming like Carville, or spreading lies on CNN as Begala was, and is, wont to do.

So, what's up with Rove hatred? Is it something leftover from Ma Richards campaigns?

[GeronL]

Someone else who doesn't get the idea that talk radio is an opinion medium, not journalism.

She should write for moron.com

=o)

[rwfromkansas]

"Conservatives: If you want, you can listen only to Limbaugh, subscribe only to The Weekly Standard, surf only www.freerepublic.com and read only Ann Coulter.

But then, will you really be able to effectively argue with someone of opposing beliefs? After all, you need to establish common ground to conduct a fruitful debate -- and I don't consider either Moore or Coulter common ground.

We students often claim to fight indoctrination, be it conservative or liberal. But by surrounding ourselves with opinions that we already agree with, we are in fact being indoctrinated and inoculated against further learning."

Well, he is right. If all we do is talk to people we agree with, how can we further understand the true beliefs of the other side...rather than simply our perceptions of them? Sometimes conservatives go too far in calling liberalism socialism all the time, for instance. Yes, liberalism is wrong, but we need to be able to explain why much better than just screaming, "Well, because they are a bunch of hippie socialists." That won't win converts, and rightly so.

I must admit that I love watching the videos of Evan Coyne Maloney. He exposes the stupidity of many leftists. For an example of his work, see: http://brain-terminal.com/video/nyc-2004-03-20/

However, believe it or not, there are some smart liberals out there. They aren't all hippies without an education. And we conservatives have our share of morons as well.

You can't live in a bubble and expect to fully understand where the other side is coming from, nor can you ultimately be able to DEFEND THE CONSERVATIVE PHILOSOPHY by simply hanging out on FR. Turn on NOW with Bill Moyers sometimes. Listen to NPR. Head over to the New Republic website sometimes.

I don't mean head over to DU and listen to Franken. They are not intelligent places to learn the other side. You need to see places in which there is REASONED argumentation of the liberal position.

But ultimately, we need to do it to a degree (doing it too much will drive you insane of course). If we do not, conservatism will not be able to thoroughly demolish the left like it should be able to do. If we do not, our opinions will not be as strong when defending our positions since we can't refute the core logic of the other side, only the Democrat Party talking points since that is what you learn to do on FR.

FR is great. You get to work with others to fight the left. You get to have fellowship with others. You get to see many amazing news articles and discuss them with like-minded people. You get to have FUN.

But ultimately, you have to get your hands dirty to be a fully capable supporter of freedom and limited government. You need to get out there and observe what others think, debate with them, have pleasant conversations with those who are willing to do so instead of shouting you down (tough to do, but possible). Just like Jesus calls us to go into the nations to evangelize in a world that is not our home, as conservatives, we need to go out and get to know the enemy so a proper refutation of liberalism can be offered. And who knows, perhaps we will win some converts...and friends...in the process.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

So on one side we have Ann Coulter and Michael Moore on the other. Coulter takes great pains to get her facts straight, as illustrated by libs who call her out on it, but have no specific reference as to where she's wrong when she asks them for any.
Moore avoids real facts as much as he avoids soap.
Which one would you choose?

[cynicom]

"I'll admit to mine right now. I can't stand country music, political strategist Karl Rove and chemistry

Can't stand country music? Bet she loves rock and roll but does'nt where it came from. Dislikes Karl Rove, goes right to the top of the heap, avoids her real hate. Hates chemistry, now that is the real teller, just another wordsmith without a brain.

[walford]

The sophomore's missive omits several crucial points:

There is an appetite for conservative sources of information because 80% or more of professional journalists vote Demo. Possibly more are Leftists. A palpable media bias to the Left creates a hole in news coverage that is filled by conservative commentary.

This is why attempts to start Leftist talk shows [Cuomo, Tom (Don't) Likas] have failed in the past, because there is already a saturation of that point of view in the media and entertainment -- although they portray themselves to be objective.

This is a key difference. Conservative talk show hosts make no pretense of being objective -- it is commmentary.

Thus, those of us who partake of Rush, FR and the like are AUGMENTING our diet of Left-wing dominated news coverage in an attempt to get complete coverage.

Criticism of FR is especially disingenous. We are certainly not using singular sources of information. It has the most diverse base of cited sources that I know of. Compare that to the limited sourcing found at DU. FR has a more diverse range of points-of-view while DU is a Leftist circle-jerk. Opposing points of view are simply not tolerated there at all. Here, a Leftist can stay if he/she can remain civil and on-topic.

The article is trying to posit a moral equivalency where there is none. There is no mirror image from one side to the other, because the positions are based upon fundamentally different [but not opposite] mindsets.

[Common Tator]

But stations for just liberal talk or just conservative talk make real debate virtually impossible.

If you need proof that our educational system is a giant falure, all you need do is read this rant.

For all but the last 60 years of our nations histroy the media was openly and proudly partisan. For example leading up to and during the Civil war nearly every town had an anti slavery Republican paper lauding Lincoln. While the other paper in town was openly Democratic and in favor of slavery. The Democratic papers portrayed blacks as little more than animals. They portrayed Lincoln as subhuman too. The Republican papers protrayed Lincoln as a savior of the nation.

The liberal papers of the 30s painted Roosevelt as the perfect leader. The conservative papers painted Roosevelt as an evil man. The Roosevelt adminstation became so fearful of radio, that in 1943 they made it illegal for radio stations to editorialize. It was Democrats who made partisanship on radio and TV illegal with the so called fairness doctrine.

Newspapers began folding in the 1950's. The surviving papers tried to get both sides to read their paper. So they put out the word that they were non partisan. But that was always a lie. Reporters for newspapers, radio and TV always put out their own veiws and called it objective. The object was to fool the viewers into supporting their positions.

The only reason for journalism is so people can get news they can not observe for themselves. With the internet and its huge bandwidth people can now get their own news. They can, with the internet, report for each other. The media monopoly on information is being removed. The media can no longer keep a secret. Everyone knew JFK has females on the payroll whose sole jobs were to provide him sex. The media hid that from us. But now with the internet the sexual escapades of a Clinton are exposed. The media and its followers hate its loss of control.

What this little girl fails to understand is that the journalists she so admires are going the way of the 45 RPM record. She can lament their passing, but her golden days of media rule are soon to be history.

People are informing each other on web sites like Free Republic. The days of the media elite fooling the public are fast comming to an end. And the spin put out by the main stream media is no longer working.

I suspect this young lady would like to be a media star. The media star days will soon be gone as well. Katie Couric and silent film stars will share a situation. They will both be long forgotten history.

It is over. There is no longer a way to control information. And this litte girl was born 50 years too late.

[WinOne4TheGipper]

The problem is that Free Republic allows you to post liberal articles. And, no, I don't just stay at FR. I had an account at DU once (as do most FReepers- come on, you know you do it), but got frustrated that they weren't looking at the facts. Bush was AWOL, forget the facts. A George mag. article proved that they were wrong and they claimed it was right. Plus the fact that I called them morons. And I'd do it again. Does FR keep a page called Top Ten Stupidest Liberals? No. Because it's a tie for number one.

[sweetliberty]

"By shutting out other vantage points and listening only to what you agree with, you're just sticking your fingers in your ears and humming."

That is nonsense. The reason we don't want to listen to the left is that we have long since memorized all of their talking points and quite frankly, they have become nauseating. They don't want debate (unless you call screaming, name-calling fits of fictitious blather debate). It is impossible to debate an opponent who is emotionally reactive rather than intellectually informed.

[Budge]

You probably gave it (fairness) your best shot, Torie, but your backhand slap at Ann Coulter and Rush proves to me that you will wind up being just another liberal hack after you finish your brainwashing education.

Tell you what, MZ. Bosch. Go over to DUh and read all the wonderful debates between liebrals and conservatives.