Our Political Mess A Result Of False Equivalencies

[egbertowillies]

The two parties do not hold equal blame in the crisis afflicting this country. This article tries to explain how false equivalencies are destroying the country.
http://egbertowillies.com/2013/10/11/false-equivalencies/

[BlueStreak]

1. It is symptom, not cause.

The cause is the consolidation of total power by the richest Americans and biggest multinational corporations. That power includes a stranglehold on the national teevee media. The false equivalence is simply a tactic the media uses to carry out the wishes of the 0.1%

[russspeakeasy]

2. According to MS. greenspan, that's exactly the problem.

[question everything]

4. Her name is Andrea Mitchell!

How would you like to be addressed as the one who is married to the poor lady who married a misogynist?

Got news for you: Many women do not take their husbands' names. For you to imply so means that you have no respect for whoever is married to Greenspan - Emily, Sarah, Francesca, whatever.

And what are you doing in DU where such opinions have no place? Or, at least, should not?

[russspeakeasy]

5. Have a drink, take a nap.

[Jamaal510]

6. I'm not a big fan of her show,

but I agree. Plus I don't think she is nearly as bad when it comes to someone like a Hannity or Limbaugh. She did at least appear in one commercial about women's rights and the right to vote.

[unblock]

3. no, it's the result of a markedly right-wing bias.

the "false equivalency" trick is merely one way in which they disguise their right-wing bias.

think about it. what about taking an extreme argument from one side and a mainstream argument from the other is inherently biased one way or the other? it all depends on which arguments you choose, doesn't it?


the fact is that the genuinely liberal arguments are consistently ignored, or mentioned only for mockery.
meanwhile right-wing insanity if presented as a normal position.

so yes, we have a "false equivalency" if they, for example, present an extreme, right-wing insane argument as the republican position and a bipartisan agreement brokered by a democratic president as the democratic position, implying there must be compromise from there (when the democrats have already compromised).

however, it could just as easily have gone the other way around. they could have talked about the tax policy agreed pushed by reagan, involving a top tax rate of 50%, and presented that as the republican position, then found a few left-wing crazies calling for a 90% tax rate as the democratic position, implying we need a compromise from there.

and those calling for tax rates lower than 50% would be ignored.


but, gee, that never happens, does it?


so it's not the false equivalency that's the problem.

it's the out-and-out right-wing bias that's the problem.

[Jamaal510]

7. +1

[Cosmocat]

8. yep!

NM