RetNavyPAC Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 . . . The vast, vast, vast majority of media in this country is uber-left. Yeah, maybe once you get outside the Fox News/Townhall.com bubble Boatswain, but there is no designated "left-wing" or "right-wing" media in this country. It's all corporate media. Large, multinational corporations all bent on one thing: their own financial self interest. And that is DEEPLY conservative. I'm curious - how much cognitive dissonance will it cause when I offer the fact that Fox News (hardly 'uber-left') has the broadest, deepest penetration into American households? Here's a snapshot: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/04/12/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-april-11-2013/177492. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatswain2PA Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Yeah, maybe once you get outside the Fox News/Townhall.com bubble Boatswain, but there is no designated "left-wing" or "right-wing" media in this country. It's all corporate media. Large, multinational corporations all bent on one thing: their own financial self interest. And that is DEEPLY conservative. I'm curious - how much cognitive dissonance will it cause when I offer the fact that Fox News (hardly 'uber-left') has the broadest, deepest penetration into American households? Here's a snapshot: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2013/04/12/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-april-11-2013/177492. Of course there is no "designated" left or right wing media, but that is part of the joke of today's media. Do you really think Ted Turner, a major force behind news media in this country, is DEEPLY conservative? Even Rupert Murdoch doesn't seem to be personally conservative, just a good business man who knows that conservatives are disgusted at the liberal media, so he offered them a choice. No cognitive dissonance at all. Most of America leans far to the right of most major news organizations, so they like Fox news which is far to the right of the other major networks. But the conservative influence of Fox still doesn't compare to the political force of left leaning academia, politica, and media. Do you really think that most of the media in the country do not have a liberal agenda?? Again, can you think of a single time where a liberal speaker has been stopped from speaking at a university? It doesn't happen, they are welcomed with open arms. It doesn't even matter if you blew up police stations and the pentagon, if you are a liberal leftist you can not only speak freely at American Universities, but you can be offered a Distinguished Professorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAdamsPAC Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 I'm impressed. Two days, 74 posts, everyone's wearing their political chips on their shoulders, and we have not yet fulfilled Godwin's Law. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" OK I'll bite....Hitler also used "the children" as a prop, while he ordered the slaughter of thousands of children that didn't fit in with his plan. Just like the Abortionist Paradise called Planned Parenthood slaughters thousands of Black children a year while telling the lie of delivery of women's health! You have your cross to bear and wield against those of us who still believe in right and wrong, hard work, personal responsibility, and that the "Social Safety Net" isn't meant to be a hammock or bribe for votes! Doctor Carson is the worst nightmare for the Left an accomplished Black man who not only does not drink the Kool Aid, but instead can eloquently point out the failings of the "Left's" agenda to maintain the underclass along with controlling society in general to the average person. I've had AAPA number for many years as an organization that is in the pocket of the "cabal "of big governmental solutions and sheeple who attended PA school. This action again reaffirms my commitment to actively encourage PAs to not join or rejoin the AAPA. I would be honored to meet Doctor Carson shake his hand and tell him how much I respect him as a person and physician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swarley Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 ... To say one side is bullying the other into submission from these statements seems to be a little bit of a jump. Can't we all just try to get along? I find this to naive. Dr Carson was only a distraction because people chose to be offended, and despite the fact that it is highly unlikely he was going to talk about marriage. He is only the latest victim in a growing list of victims of bullying. The left and right are out for blood, constantly seeking ways to win a scalp of a celebrity that says something "offensive" or they don't agree with. Each victory only serves to embolden the other side to be even more hypersensitive, so they can a scalp of their own. No, we can never all just get along. People say they favor freedom of speech, and listening to all sides then making a decision. In reality, they only want freedom of speech for someone they agree with, and already made a decision and do not want to hear any arguments that would change that opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physasst Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Listen....it's okay to have a dissenting opinion. I've served in leadership positions with the AAPA, and continue to serve in faculty and leadership positions now at Mayo. There are several issues where I strongly disagree with my colleagues both in the AAPA and in other venues. I tend to be vocal. The point is, dissenting opinions SHOULD be heard. They are essential for the function of democracy and in fact here, they remain our civic duty. BUT, and here's the rub, the right to a dissenting opinion also carries with it the responsibility to advocate your dissension in an appropriate manner. Here's a corollary. If I was to say I was opposed to the equal employment opportunity, I could certainly say so. But, if I were to say that "african americans don't deserve any greater opportunity for employment, I mean, what's next 'terrorists'...by extension 'every terrorist deserves a job too'". I would be in hot water. I would be in real hot water. Being opposed to anything is your right, and I will argue to defend that right against anything, even subjects I hold dear, because it is the fundamental principle of democracy. But, that right to opposition does not extend to the right to insult and denigrate others. Which is what he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatswain2PA Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Yes, you could say "what's next...'every terrorist deserves a job too" if terrorism was somehow associated with joblessness. In Dr. Carson's case, he was referring to groups of people with atypical sexual preferences. He in no way equated homosexuality with bestiality, pedophilia, or anything else because, as an incredibly smart person, he KNOWS there is a huge difference between the these sexual preferences. However, there is a clearly visible slippery slope here, and this is what Dr. Carson was referring to: Step 1. If we allow homosexuals to change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, then what would prevent polygamists from changing the definition of marriage to include more than two people? After all, there are already loving households with more than two "parents" living together! Step 2. If the polygamists then changed the definition of marriage to include more than two people, then what would prevent NAMBLA from changing the definition of marriage to include two children. After all, most of us had our first "love" in high school or junior high...how in the world can we prevent two people who love each other and are in committed relationship from becoming married. Step 3. If two children who love each other can get married, then why can't that young child and older man who are in a committed loving relationship get married. After, if you older man was younger they would be able to, or if the young child were older they would be able to....and they love each other, so why not?? Then what. I have several friends who have pets in their lives instead of spouses and children. There are people who leave everything they own to their dogs and/or cats when they die. Isn't it just horrible that these people have to go through the time and expense of having a lawyer draw up their will so that their possessions go to their dogs/cats? Why can a married person automatically leave everything to their spouse, but a person can't automatically leave everything to their dogs/cats?? Well, that's just not fair, so maybe they should be able to marry their dog/cat to have the same legal protections. THIS is what Dr. Carson was referring to. He was NOT equating homosexuality to bestiality....but simply used them both in the same sentence as a population that wants to change the definition of "marriage". Bottom line here is that when liberals hear something they don't like, they try to shut it down. This is just another example in the long list of examples. Liberalism used to be the ideology of tolerance. Not anymore. Oh, and before any liberals get their pants in a wad thinking I just equated homosexuals with pedophiles and/or bestiality, read it again. I didn't. Nor did I actually insult anyone (although I'm sure there are liberals who are already reporting me to the moderators for disagreeing with them.) Furthermore, it is not my job to judge who you are sleeping with (unless they are a child), or what you are sleeping with. That is true tolerance. Try it sometime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE.PA.PAC Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Yes, you could say "what's next...'every terrorist deserves a job too" if terrorism was somehow associated with joblessness. In Dr. Carson's case, he was referring to groups of people with atypical sexual preferences. He in no way equated homosexuality with bestiality, pedophilia, or anything else because, as an incredibly smart person, he KNOWS there is a huge difference between the these sexual preferences. However, there is a clearly visible slippery slope here, and this is what Dr. Carson was referring to: Step 1. If we allow homosexuals to change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, then what would prevent polygamists from changing the definition of marriage to include more than two people? After all, there are already loving households with more than two "parents" living together! Step 2. If the polygamists then changed the definition of marriage to include more than two people, then what would prevent NAMBLA from changing the definition of marriage to include two children. After all, most of us had our first "love" in high school or junior high...how in the world can we prevent two people who love each other and are in committed relationship from becoming married. Step 3. If two children who love each other can get married, then why can't that young child and older man who are in a committed loving relationship get married. After, if you older man was younger they would be able to, or if the young child were older they would be able to....and they love each other, so why not?? Then what. I have several friends who have pets in their lives instead of spouses and children. There are people who leave everything they own to their dogs and/or cats when they die. Isn't it just horrible that these people have to go through the time and expense of having a lawyer draw up their will so that their possessions go to their dogs/cats? Why can a married person automatically leave everything to their spouse, but a person can't automatically leave everything to their dogs/cats?? Well, that's just not fair, so maybe they should be able to marry their dog/cat to have the same legal protections. THIS is what Dr. Carson was referring to. He was NOT equating homosexuality to bestiality....but simply used them both in the same sentence as a population that wants to change the definition of "marriage". Bottom line here is that when liberals hear something they don't like, they try to shut it down. This is just another example in the long list of examples. Liberalism used to be the ideology of tolerance. Not anymore. Oh, and before any liberals get their pants in a wad thinking I just equated homosexuals with pedophiles and/or bestiality, read it again. I didn't. Nor did I actually insult anyone (although I'm sure there are liberals who are already reporting me to the moderators for disagreeing with them.) Furthermore, it is not my job to judge who you are sleeping with (unless they are a child), or what you are sleeping with. That is true tolerance. Try it sometime. You make it sound like a control issue. Why do you care what other people do -- even if there is a "slippery slope"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swarley Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 He did not insult or denigrate anyone. People are choosing to insinuate something he did not say so that they can be offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physasst Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Furthermore, it is not my job to judge who you are sleeping with (unless they are a child), or what you are sleeping with. That is true tolerance. Try it sometime. Then why out of curiosity would it be your job to judge who gets married? Conservatives love to talk about limited government and getting the government out of peoples lives unless it happens to pertain to an issue such as abortion or gay marriage. Then they love to advocate for government limitations. I believe that there is a word for that. As far as your (and also Carson's) argument about a slippery slope it's a disingenuous reductio ad absurdum. It doesn't deserve a serious response because those other actions (pedophila and bestiality) are illegal. Polygamy, last I checked was also illegal (Edmunds Act). Homosexuality is not illegal. Ergo, it would be very difficult to make a legal argument to restrict gay marriage, where there can be in every other example you presented. Lastly, we don't really have liberals in this country (unfortunately). One of the consequences of the Southern strategy was that after losing in the 80's, the DNC moved to the center right (See Clinton) and sort of forced the GOP to move farther to the right (See Bush) in order to provide contrast during the elections. This was very obvious this past fall when Romney, who was forced to move so far right in order to contrast himself to Obama during the primaries, was unable to move back to the center. Romney should have won. No sitting President has ever presided over the sort of economic conditions that Obama did in his first term and won re-election. Obama won because this country is center right and he seemed sane in comparison to the GOP. Which is right where he is. He's far more conservative than many of us would like. One of my friends used to work in Reagan's administration (as well as Ron Paul's office and Bush I's administration) and he continually remarks about how just like Nixon turned out to be unexpectedly liberal, Obama has turned out to be unexpectedly conservative. Most of our democrats would be conservatives in almost any other country. They don't really have a comparable group to our GOP as they consider them to be far, far, far right. Which is where the DNC forced them to go. With the demographic shifts, the current GOP is going to go the way of the Whigs over the next 15 years if they don't change....but they are stuck. The far right that they aligned themselves with and that they count on as their "base" won't let them move, but they won't win Senate or POTUS races unless they move back to the middle. Because of districting, they will continue to control the House for the forseeable future, but that will about it. Don't believe me? Then why is Hillary beating both Rubio and Jeb Bush in polling about 2016 in Florida? That's their home state. They should be beating her by a double digit margin at this point. But she's up. Tough spot to be in really. I don't envy the RNC chair. It was a really brilliant strategy for the long run back in the 90's by the DNC. It's going to be fun to watch it play out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatswain2PA Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 You make it sound like a control issue. Why do you care what other people do -- even if there is a "slippery slope"? It is a control issue. A bunch of people inferred an insult by Dr. Carson (or, as is likely the case for many, they were spoon-fed an "insult" via the liberal media), so are now exerting control about where he is allowed to speak about anything. As long as they are not hurting other people then I don't care what people do. Read the last sentence of my last post. However I do care what we do as society, and today's society is allowing liberals to silence any type of conservative speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatswain2PA Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Then why out of curiosity would it be your job to judge who gets married? It is not. It is society's job. As a member of society I should be allowed to voice my opinion. So should Dr. Carson. Unfortunately our politically correct society is silencing any conservative voices. As far as your (and also Carson's) argument about a slippery slope it's a disingenuous reductio ad absurdum. It doesn't deserve a serious response because those other actions (pedophila and bestiality) are illegal. Polygamy, last I checked was also illegal (Edmunds Act). The first step in silencing dissenting opinion is ridiculing it. Just because YOU think it is absurd does not make it so. It makes perfect sense, however I forgot to include what must happen BEFORE the step 1 above....homosexuality must be legalized and legitimized. Since it has been legalized (yes it was illegal for a long time in most places), and now legitimized, now we can proceed with step 1 down the slippery slope. Yes, polygamy is illegal.....for now. Think it will change? Depends on how far down the slippery slope we go. Romney failed because he is far to the right of our mainstream media and academic centers who rule the message, and only allow their message out. The exact same thing is happening with Dr. Carson. How about we stay on topic about Dr. Carson. He is another conservative voice who was silenced by the liberals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sartort Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Romney lost both his birth state and his resident state. No one has won the presidential election after losing both since 1844 (See Polk). I think his problem was not just that he was pushed to be ultra-conservative but that people didn't trust him. President Obama is still liked by a lot of the nation and many still remember that the economy went down before he was in office. Sure he gets a lot of blame for the spending still, but no one forgets who sent us to the wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Steve Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 So a question for the folks who want to restrict marriage to only heterosexual people...how would you address medical visitation and decision making that has traditionally been left to the spouse/immediate family? As it stands now, a married heterosexual couple can have extended visiting hours for their spouse and family and are oft conferenced with when difficult medical decisions regarding the discontinuance of medical care must be made. The spouse is brought forward and asked "what does your spouse want to have done for them?" A long term committed homosexual couple is not offered this same legal stance...since this is a medical forum, I am trying to keep the topic pertinent. Off the topic of medicine, is this hubris really just over some bit in the bible about man and woman? Wasn't our country founded upon the foundation of freedom of religion? How does that not include freedom FROM religion? Why does the religious right get to decide what freedoms to extend to legal citizens over the age of consent? Why are there continual red herring distractors about man and beast or father and son? Do you truly believe that the citizens of our country WANT to allow that to happen? This sort of distorted thinking is parallel to the thought of "if we open the books to change Physician Assistant to Physician Associate, current practice laws for PAs can be erased and we will all be obsolete" Are the religious right so much in a fervor that they missed the part that over half the nation voted for the current president and that by most polls, SUPPORT gay marriage? Why must people be so threatened by something that won't affect them in a negative manner? If gay marriage is allowed, no one is going to come take your current standing liberties...it will only allow homosexual people to have the same rights as heterosexuals. For goodness sakes, homosexuals can now openly serve in the military and we haven't been over ran by the enemy...why can't they have the same rights as the people they are serving to protect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LT_Oneal_PAC Posted April 13, 2013 Moderator Share Posted April 13, 2013 I thought political threads weren't allowed on the forum anymore? Can't we just shut this whole thing down, like women's reproductive processes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatswain2PA Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Or, how about we keep it to how the AAPA caved in to a bunch of liberals and silenced an amazing surgeon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medic207 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Or, how about we keep it to how the AAPA caved in to a bunch of liberals and silenced an amazing surgeon. That is the real issue here! Basically the AAPA has just told its members that they are not "mature" enough to listen to Dr. Carson. That a few people got "offended." So how does that make you feel know? You in your wardrobe of "protector of the free thinkers" were just told that you are not mature enough to hear a conservative speak. Well that's the official word. Remember, the AAPA is a lapdog. They are afraid they may be "on the menu." They were SHUT down by the HHS, and BO. The affordable care act is floundering as is the economy, the last thing they need is an "opponent" who is accomplished, and who is conservative, speak to a medical group and even possibly plant a seed of doubt. So like I said before, AAPA was taken to the wood shed and "fixed" and in comes the HHS secretary. She knows full well Obamacare is flawed from top to bottom, they simply could not risk Dr. Carsen staying the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAdamsPAC Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 That is the real issue here! Basically the AAPA has just told its members that they are not "mature" enough to listen to Dr. Carson. That a few people got "offended." So how does that make you feel know? You in your wardrobe of "protector of the free thinkers" were just told that you are not mature enough to hear a conservative speak. Well that's the official word. Remember, the AAPA is a lapdog. They are afraid they may be "on the menu." They were SHUT down by the HHS, and BO. The affordable care act is floundering as is the economy, the last thing they need is an "opponent" who is accomplished, and who is conservative, speak to a medical group and even possibly plant a seed of doubt. So like I said before, AAPA was taken to the wood shed and "fixed" and in comes the HHS secretary. She knows full well Obamacare is flawed from top to bottom, they simply could not risk Dr. Carsen staying the truth. Exactamundo.....ding-ding-ding Medic207 has won a cupie doll with truth and wisdom!!! Amen my PA Brother keep on singing the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnpac Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 Again, can you think of a single time where a liberal speaker has been stopped from speaking at a university? It doesn't happen, they are welcomed with open arms. It doesn't even matter if you blew up police stations and the pentagon, if you are a liberal leftist you can not only speak freely at American Universities, but you can be offered a Distinguished Professorship. Not true. This type of protest regularly occurs with speakers on both sides of the political spectrum. http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2013/04/12/news/8d969e49-66ae-4ce1-9e14-00c5c31be290.txt?viewmode=2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator ventana Posted April 14, 2013 Moderator Share Posted April 14, 2013 I thought political threads weren't allowed on the forum anymore? Can't we just shut this whole thing down, like women's reproductive processes? good idea, lets let this one close itself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAdamsPAC Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 good idea, lets let this one close itself... Water will seek it's own level........................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatswain2PA Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 Not true. This type of protest regularly occurs with speakers on both sides of the political spectrum. http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2013/04/12/news/8d969e49-66ae-4ce1-9e14-00c5c31be290.txt?viewmode=2 I'm glad you found TWO examples of extreme radical liberals who had speeches cancelled due to protests. One a murderer who bombed police stations and the pentagon, and the other a New Black Panther racist. Huge difference between those guys and a world-renown pediatric neurosurgeon and his PA speaking at a PA conference. Shame on the AAPA for caving in to the liberal hyper-sensitive censors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MediMike Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 I fail to see how people objecting to Mr. Carson speaking are "liberal hyper-sensitive censors". If a scheduled speaker was on the record making statements against interracial marriage would you feel the same way about this situation? I can understand the reluctance of the AAPA to continue with his appointment as a speaker (although it was he himself who withdrew if I am correct), I don't believe medicine to be the proper location for discrimination against a population, and if the only member who were vocal were the more left-leaning members, well perhaps the conservative members should have spoken up loudly themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatswain2PA Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 I fail to see how people objecting to Mr. Carson speaking are "liberal hyper-sensitive censors". If a scheduled speaker was on the record making statements against interracial marriage would you feel the same way about this situation? I can understand the reluctance of the AAPA to continue with his appointment as a speaker (although it was he himself who withdrew if I am correct), I don't believe medicine to be the proper location for discrimination against a population, and if the only member who were vocal were the more left-leaning members, well perhaps the conservative members should have spoken up loudly themselves. People objecting is not censorship. However when groups band together with the sole purpose of shutting down that person's speech or thought, this becomes censorship whether it is the government (a group of people), or an organization (a group of people). Yes, I would feel the same way if he had spoken about interracial marriage because we live in a nation of (supposedly) FREE SPEECH! He is a world-renown surgeon who is receiving the Paragon award and was going to give a speech to a group of PAs. Nothing to do with interracial marriage, changing the definition of marriage, or bombing of the pentagon. If he had made a damn fool of himself by saying blacks and whites shouldn't marry, then he would have made a fool of himself. Unfortunately in today's society though, conservatives will have their words twisted around by the liberal media to look foolish even when they have a very solid point to make. Dr. Carson is just the most recent victim of this (see how the media twisted/selectively edited the words of George Zimmerman, George Bush Sr. & Jr., Reagan, Mitt and Ann Romney, etc.). And how in the world did you make the giant leap that he discriminated against a population? Just because you don't have the same belief's as your patients, or anyone else, does not mean that you will discriminate against them. I don't have the same belief as any single one of the drug addicts that come into my ER, but I don't discriminate against them....I treat them with respect and dignity, and give them the best medical care I can. So, are you now saying disagreeing with someone is discriminating against them? Are you, therefore, discriminating against me?? If yes, then I suggest we launch a federal investigation of the AAPA for discriminating against Dr. Carson. See how ridiculous it is when we all have such incredibly thin skin!!! You have a good point about conservative members should speak up. Unfortunately most conservatives just suffer in silence because they see what happens when they do speak out.....and Dr. Carson is a perfect example of this. If Dr. Carson can get in this much trouble (Cancelled speaking engagements, hate email, etc) because he said he doesn't agree with any group who wants to change the definition of marriage (whether they are homosexuals, pedophiles, bigamists, etc), imagine what can happen to that single PA working for a hospital group? He/she will quickly be bullied right out of a job. And to those who are calling for the thread to be shut down----there are no personal attacks going on (other than MediMike inferring that Dr. Carson discriminated). Let the free exchange of ideas take place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnpac Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 Unfortunately in today's society though, conservatives will have their words twisted around by the liberal media to look foolish even when they have a very solid point to make. Conservatives don't need help from the "liberal media" to avoid looking foolish.... They need help from themselves. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator EMEDPA Posted April 14, 2013 Moderator Share Posted April 14, 2013 the other issue here is that the pa who was going to share the paragon award now will not through no fault of her own.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.