Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<And you're basing that statement on...? A poll? What you hear from your friends? What?>> <Reading lots of commentary on the issue.> Oh, nice to know it was something scientific like that. And considering that your links are almost always to opinionjournal, national review, etc., I would guess that the bulk of the "lots" of commentary you've read has been from that direction. If that's the bulk of what you read, it's no surprise that your "common definitions" of things might not be as common as you think. <<A bit of a Freudian slip on your part, but absolutely correct. If they overrule a legislative decision via (what you deem as) liberal interpretation, they're "activist.">> <That's liberal with a small l, not a capital. > Nice save, but I suspect you revealed yourself the first time.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If that's the bulk of what you read, it's no surprise that your "common definitions" of things might not be as common as you think.> Considering that the people who coined the phrase "judicial activism" and first started talking about it tend to write articles for National Review and OpinionJournal, I think that's a good place to learn what it means. <Nice save, but I suspect you revealed yourself the first time.> Well, you're wrong again.
Originally Posted By woody "Oh, nice to know it was something scientific like that. And considering that your links are almost always to opinionjournal, national review, etc., I would guess that the bulk of the "lots" of commentary you've read has been from that direction. If that's the bulk of what you read, it's no surprise that your "common definitions" of things might not be as common as you think." For a person who is so hung up on who's revealing their true selves, you're doing a pretty good job of describing yourself as a Liberal hack. You can't discount Opinion Journal so quickly. They are part of the influencial Wall Street Journal, who BTW, was described as liberal by another assessment. Assuming the quality of their news work is good, their conservative editorials should be accepted as equally credible. ------ <a href="http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664" target="_blank">http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/p age.asp?RelNum=6664</a> "While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left." "These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly." --------- Dabob2: You should learn that just because people are conservative does not mean they don't have any credibility, or as you put it "not be as common". I think the public is not as reliant on the Mainstream Media, who have lost audiences in news print, broadcast news, and radio. Let there be more conservative news outlets. As a consumer of such resources, I am quite aware of the liberal slant. I know when I'm feed an obviously biased poll and I act accordingly. NOT AS COMMON??? Keep putting your head in the sand as an ostrich. That's the way you like it. The lack of appreciation of alternative commentary and news sources is absolutely stunning.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The lack of appreciation of alternative commentary and news sources is absolutely stunning.<< Have you seen this study, Woody? <a href="http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060124_political_decisions.html" target="_blank">http://www.livescience.com/oth ernews/060124_political_decisions.html</a> >>Let there be more conservative news outlets. As a consumer of such resources, I am quite aware of the liberal slant.<< Sometimes unintentional humor is the funniest kind.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<If that's the bulk of what you read, it's no surprise that your "common definitions" of things might not be as common as you think.>> <Considering that the people who coined the phrase "judicial activism" and first started talking about it tend to write articles for National Review and OpinionJournal, I think that's a good place to learn what it means.> So because the first people to use the term slanted it according to their bias, we should accept their take on it as a neutral term? I don't think so. <<Nice save, but I suspect you revealed yourself the first time.>> <Well, you're wrong again.> I really don't think so.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So because the first people to use the term slanted it according to their bias, we should accept their take on it as a neutral term?> No, you should feel free to redefine terms, just like liberals like to redefine the language and revise history.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>No, you should feel free to redefine terms, just like liberals like to redefine the language and revise history.<< Which is of course redefining "liberals".
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Which is of course redefining "liberals".> It's simply noting some of the things they do.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer And the right hasn't? I think the redefinition of "liberalism" by the right is one of the most interesting things in our political scene in the past forty years.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<<<So because the first people to use the term slanted it according to their bias, we should accept their take on it as a neutral term?>>>> <<<No, you should feel free to redefine terms, just like liberals like to redefine the language and revise history.>>> <<Which is of course redefining "liberals".>> <It's simply noting some of the things they do.> Actually, IMO it's conservatives who are much more guilty of doing this. Naturally, you won't think so. Look at "politically correct" - originally a term used by liberals to poke fun at themselves. Conservatives took it over and made it an epithet that it wasn't originally. There are plenty of other examples. "Collatoral damage" (i.e. civilian deaths) comes to mind. Hell, redefining "liberal" itself as an epithet comes to mind. When it comes to newspeak, no one beats conservatives.
Originally Posted By cmpaley The Right loves to redefine terms to make things seem worse than they really are...or make things that aren't anything appear to be something.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And the right hasn't? I think the redefinition of "liberalism" by the right is one of the most interesting things in our political scene in the past forty years.> The right has not redefined "liberalism"; Liberals have redefined "Liberalism" by doing the things they have done.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Actually, IMO it's conservatives who are much more guilty of doing this. Naturally, you won't think so.> I usually don't believe things that aren't supported by the evidence.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer "I usually don't believe things that aren't supported by the evidence that I choose to believe." There, fixed that for you.
Originally Posted By woody "What's stunning is your lack of comprehension." Coming from a guy who really doesn't argue with substance, your comment describes yourself.
Originally Posted By woody "Conservatives can be quite credible, and I even could name conservative columnists, etc. that I quite like, even if I often disagree. My point was what happens when one reads too much of one and not enough of the other." That wasn't your point. You said Conservative points of view were not common. Why do you keep doing this? You keep moving the goal posts. I read enough Liberal points of view to think they are not the mainstream. Yet I won't stop reading them, but if you're trying to make a point, please post a good Liberal opinion piece.
