BBC bias by kaneman

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

BBC bias

POSTED BY: KANEMAN
UPDATED: Friday, November 3, 2006 19:17
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3926
PAGE 2 of 2

Saturday, October 28, 2006 4:29 PM

Quote:
Righteous:

Really Dreamtrove? Really?
First of all, sure a lot of shows tend to have a liberal angle. Liberals tend to be in hollywood, yada yada.
But watching a fiction show that deals with election fraud is not the same thing as watching the news, which is supposed to be our information outlet.

I don't think this is the major issue. I think that it was bbc and not the news in particular which was at issue.

Quote:

Pandering to at least half of their viewership by not totally lambasting gays, or not totally ripping pro-abortionists on their news programs, is hardly a measure of liberalness.

I don't have a tv, but what i've seen hardly fits this description.

Quote:

What you should be looking to when you try to tell me that our media is liberally biased is why it continued day after day to not touch the most damning stories out there of this president, and his Fascist policies. And no, he's not a Commie, he is a Fascist.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. But he's hardly a conservative by any measure. I will accept that Blair is not a liberal, and that between the two there's nothing to choose, together they are a something else. They fit the communist definition about as well as the

fascist one, but I don't see much difference between the two. In time they'll probably be called something else. I nominate globalist, because it's what they call themselves. Today it has no stigma, but in 50 years time it will be used the way we use "Nazi" today,

because of what these guys will have done by then.

Quote:

Why did it take over a month for any of the main-stream media to even touch the downing street memo, while we were screaming about it on the internet? And when they finally touched the story it was begrudgingly?

Your media loves Labor, and it loves globalism even more. Don't ask me why

Quote:

Why did the NY Times not break the damned story about the wiretapping during 2004 when it could have actually swayed the election?

NYT is probably the most zionist publication outside of Israel. They don't want to oppose a president who supports Israel this strongly.

Quote:

Why did nobody save Olbermann even talk about the possibility of election fraud, while voter fraud was repeated as a concern over and over?

It's all a great big conspiracy? I don't know. It seemed like an issue to me. But the argument isn't "is the media pro-Bush" because of course it is. But Bush isn't a conservative, even if he's on a conservative ticket. Supporting him isn't "being conservative" - the day

to day programs on tv don't preach a straight life with a picket fence. Ironically, the simpsons is probably about the most conservative thing on: Homer works a steady job, loves his wife, is dedicated to raising his kids, etc.

Quote:

Why did only like 2 people cover the details of this last bill that the president signed giving him the right to torture whomever he wants and the right to suspend habeus corpus, in the guise of stopping terror? The news itself only talked aobut a compromise reached

by him and moderates, which isn't even the truth...it was a cave to Bush. They did not go into detail about what this law actually meant, and don't tell me that isn't news-worty.

again, the press loves Bush. You're point is?

Quote:

Why has nobody even talked about PNAC in the mainstream news? I absolutely agree that to do so as evidence of wrongdoing would be slanderous, but the talking heads on the right slander all day long. just look at what they've said about Murtha's service,

Michael J Fox, Sheehan, Ritter,Kerry with the swift-boat ads, the 16 year old pages for christ sakes...

because this tail wags the dog?

Quote:

You should also consider these...
Why did ABC fund commercial free, a hugely expensive project of anti clinton propaganda?

because abc is run by republicans

Quote:

Why did NBC just admit that it isn't airing an ad for "shut up and sing" because it is disparaging to President Bush?

because the media loves bush?

Quote:

tell me that there's a well oiled machine working on the left like that. It's pretty much bullshit man, and I doubt you could put together a comprehensive list to the contrary.

Oh please. As soft as the media is on Bush, which is shameful, they were easily ten times softer on Clinton. Easily. You never ever hear the MSM talk about vince foster, what really happened at waco, what clinton really did in iraq, or yugoslavia or africa, clinton went

to war it didn't even make headlines. No one mentioned his corrupt deals, his hallibutron handover, his selling of us bases on us soil, even california, to communist china which it is now using to arm venezuela, nor did they touch on his drug dealing empire, they

barely even touched his whore corps, or the mergemania which was essentially a monopolistic commie take over. Compared to clinton, bush has been dragged through the mud. But still, I agree, it's still way too soft.
Think of how the media slew nixon, who was a perfectly acceptable president.

Quote:

Again, yes, there are a lot of liberals in hollywood, but our News outlets are not run by liberals, and the news itself is not the major cash crop of the companies that own the news. Keeping neocons in office has been a windfall for giant companies. Don't tell me that

their only interest is to make money by getting you to watch the news. The news is one big commercial these days to sell to the public a persepctive that will continue to bring them profits.

You're in for a rude awakening. Bush is a de-facto democrat imho, the old social dems, now called "neocons" are hardly conservative, in fact, they never professed to being conservatives, they were self styled "socialists who support the conservative movement"

but they used to support democrats, they put jimmy carter in power, and bill clinton. And the media loves Obama. Obama/Hillary will head the next neocon regime and the media will be completely mum about the millions they kill.

Quote:

Seriously consider this...if liberals control the media and republicans pretty much get little representation in it, then why do both sides tend to fight against their own best interests? Why do liberals want net neutrality?

the internet is more left-slanted, because the internet was bornreally not in the military but in universities. Almost immediately after its inception, it switched to being a university network, and was almost exclusively that for 20 years, and that's still its biggest base.

Quote:

Why do many of us want the fairness doctrine back? Why do we want the big news companies to be regulated and their choke holds on the media loosened, if to do so would be against our interests?

I think things are getting confused. The media isn't "liberal" sure, I'll concede that. It's "left wing." Everyone here has been arguing that "liberal" is some ideology that believes in some form of libertarianism, which the political left sure doesn't.

Quote:

Why on the other side of the fence, are Neocons so intent on deregulating the media further, when such an action would as you see the mainstream media run by liberals, give them even less voice?

Clinton did most of the deregulation. Wait. "Liberal" is not the opposite of "Neocon" ? Liberal=Neocon is much closer to the truth. But there's nothing liberal that this, it's some left-born mutant commie-fascist hybrid.

Quote:

Why do they want to do away with net neutrality when the danger there is that the major companies with choke holds on the web could then make it hard for people to get to conservative web pages. They are 'liberal companies' after all...right? Why did Reagan let

the Fairness Doctrine lapse if it was going to do his party so much harm? Why don't neocons who have all of the power right now, reinstate it?

Take a look at Clinton. Actually, the whole post-watergate history of it. The social dems have been migrating to the GOP for some time, they started in late 70s, but most of them are still democrats. Even now, there's more social dems, or "neocons" in the democratic

party than there are in the GOP. My biggest beef with the American left was your complete unwillingness to hear anything bad about your guy in the 90s. Clinton was collosally evil, was responsible for millions of deaths, radical consolidation of power, and no one in

the liberal media was willing to say anything more than "he dribbled on a blue dress" Who the ^%&* cares? He's a tin pot dictator on a historical scale, whores and drug empires aside, he's about insane govt. power, secret prisons, wiretapping, etc.

Is Bush another one? Sure. He's another Clinton, easily. Maybe worse, because neocon power grows with each pass, they have more power now than in the 90s, and because Bush has Clinton to build on. But still, Bush isn't responsible for Clinton levels of death

yet, and he is under attack day and night on the media, as he should be, less than he should be, but still *way* more than Clinton. And from the get go. The media was poking fun at Bush for stumbling over a couple of words in the campaign. The attack dogs were

primed and ready. If anything, the media backed off with the revelation that Bush was a neocon pawn, and not a true conservative.

If the media was all attack all the time, I'd be okay with that, I think it would be healthier than what we have. I think we could have our own Al-Jazeera, and it would probably do us a world of good. But is it biased in favor of leftist politics? sure.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 4:41 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Come on, it's obvious.

He doesn't like George Bush, he has to be one of...
THEM...

Citizen,

Argh.

Okay. Now seriously

Why is Bush in any way a leftist?

I've said it only about a hundred times, and you keep mischaracterizing it in the most simple minded way possible. Which, quite frankly, is dishonest. You know my position, and yet you insist on this ruse to paint it as something else because that other thing is easier to attack.

Bush's backers are the neocons, people born of the political left. Disown them as you are free to do. But don't deny us on the right the right to disown them as well.

The only conservative thing about neocons is that they support republican candidates financially, but they only do so in exchange for specific favors, ie. corruption, and their social dem counterparts are doing the same thing over on the left.

A list of Bush's leftist accomplishments:

1. Wars to spread freedom, a favorite clinton thing also, what i call social militarism, enforcing social reforms through military action, a classic leftist tactic. Not "liberal" in any libertarian individualist sense, but leftists is a commie fascists sense.

2. Big big big govt. spend spend spend

3. A national healthcare plan in the form of the perscription drug benefit plan., big spending.

4. centralized control, such as the dept of homeland security.

5. lack of support for american business initatives in favor of large govt. employment projects

6. attempts to regulate free industry like the internet, biotech, etc.

7. Curtailing states rights

A democrat could *run* on this, and a clinton and kerry have run on things not too different from it. It's not what Bush ran on. Bush said back in 2000 he was going to set aside 60 billion dollars to distribute among the poor. He said a lot of stuff, such as he wouldn't go to war. He pledged to support small business and states rights. He said he was a christian. In retrospect, I think he was lying his ass off.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 5:17 PM

DREAMTROVE

Soup

Quote:
you make these blanket statements that have absolutely no basis in reality.

That's a sweet rhetorical technique you've got there

Quote:
one of the hallmarks of modern American movement conservatism is that conservatives are not wrong,

And liberals in no way fit this model?

Quote:
therefore anyone who makes a statement they disagree with must not be conservative.

Oh come on, I'm sick of this bull. I made the case for Bush isn't a conservative dozens of times, and no one disagreed, everyone said "sure, he's not a conservative" He's not compassionate either. He ran on the ticket, that doesn't make him the thing.

Quote:
I see this time and again when someone that movement conservatives have supported makes a statement that challenges one of the core beliefs of modern American conservatism.

This is a core belief. If you don't stand for the values, you're not one of us. We don't change. Our beliefs are not about change. The concept of neocon is an oxymoron. Conservative is about not changing.

Quote:
All of a sudden, they're now liberals.

If they become liberals, they're liberals. But Bush was never a conservative, he was a liar. He proved in 2002 that he was no kind of conservative when he established the dept of homeland security. That cross so many lines of conservative thought it was like a drunk driver on the interstate. Any conservative who didn't at least have serious doubts throw at that point just wasn't paying enough attention.

Quote:
When conservative policies fail, as they have throughout this Presidency,

What conservative policies? This guy isn't one of us, and was never one of us. Sure, once in a while he supported one of our ideas, like faith-based initiative or social security reform. But that was an act. He never threw any serious backing behind it, he never threw money behind it. It was lip service to get our support.

Quote:
conservatives never admit that the policy itself (and the underlying theory behind it) may have been in error.

whatever

Quote:
It's always the fault of those who implemented the policy because they weren't conservative enough.

I don't see evidence that we do this, but if we do, it's not as if liberals don't do this all the time. I've heard the argument 1000 times Hitler wasn't a *true* socialist, the Soviet Union wasn't *true* communism.
Sure, I agree with your premise, the policy failed, don't blame the person who implemented it.
But that's *so* not what's going on here.

Quote:
Modern American conservatism

Is probably also an oxy moron.

Quote:
has been remarkably consistent over the past many years concerning one bedrock belief: what is good for the corporation is good for the country.

What's good for General Motors is good for america. Sure. No quibble there.

Quote:
If you look at the top twenty think tanks in the country, they are all advocates for conservative policies.

Depends on your definition of conservative. There are some conservative think tanks, most of them are globalist/federalist

Quote:
And most of them got their start after the Vietnam war.

Sure, they're part of the whole globalist movement, an academia-born leftist phenomenon which came out of the american communist part and the socialist workers party, and now has the social dems and the neocons.

Quote:
In fact, you can trace the genesis of the modern conservative think tank movement to the 1970 Lewis Powell memo to the National Chamber of Commerce. The call to action outlined in that memo was for conservatives with money to fund professorships, campus institutes and think tanks that would spread a business friendly conservative message.

our tinfoil hat theories are going to clash here. I'll have to look into this. I know that the straussians and shachtmanites were heavily involved in the same thing at the time, and they were commies and socialists, and my tinfoil hat theory has the added advantage that a whole bunch of people in *this* govt. were in *those* groups. If what you say is true, the situation may be more complicated, but it's not going to fall down on the side of "big business created this" because this is and has been killing big business for a while. This latest Bush/Clinton cabal tortures companies to death until they are so weak that the in-crowd can buy them out in a take over, after which they become "favored companies" the way the commies in china do. But this isn't free enterprise, it's a govt. take over of corporations, which is corporatism in the true style of the man who coined the term,. ie. benito musolini.

Quote:
Have you ever known academics to organize anything that had an immediate impact? I say this as someone with more than a passing familiarity with academe, there's no way in hell an organization founded by academics goes from nothing to having huge influence on Presidential policy in seven years.

I think this is a very weak argument. I think that the commies had been trying since the 50s, btw, max shachtman, the mentor of wolfowitz perle et al was specifically mentioned by joe maccarthy as a threat to america. McCarthy was right. In time, these guys got their backing. And sure, there may have been a corporation or two in there, but those guys probably ended up as "favored companies"

Noticed how under Bush General Motors has taken a beating?
Not just GM. Most of corporate america. Anyone not in the "halliburton et al" inner circle. Big pharm, Big oil, sure, doing well, and their friends, in govt.

Quote:
But getting elected by making promises and actually doing something are two different things.

True. I openly admit Geroge W. Bush has done zippo for me. But what did Clinton ever do for you? How many people on the left turned on him at the first sign of trouble.
The GOP is very flawed. No argument from me there. But the democratic party is a trainwreck. If I were a liberal I'd either be very involved in reforming/overthrowing the current order in control of the dems, or I'd join the 3rd party movement.

Quote:
Republican Party is hugely successful at getting elected and a huge failure at governing.

Not exactly fair. They're not great, but neither are the dems. This statement is much more true of Bush Jr specifically than it is of the GOP overall. My local republicans govern pretty well. In NYC bloomberg is doing a bang up job, and Pataki isn't perfect, but he's a hell of a lot better than Mario Cuomo, who refused to plow the local state highways because they had fewer than 50K cars a day, he closed all the interstate rest stops, raised taxes, overspent, and was all around a corrupt disaster. Thank your party for not taking him seriously as a presidential candidate.

Quote:
Especially where it concerns issues that have a disproportionate impact on minority communities. The proof is in the pudding.

Just saying, I think that the dems drop the ball on minority issues daily. Malcom X said that there was no chance a party run by whites would ever do well by blacks. If you don't lose them to us, you might lose them to a third party.

Quote:
How many Republican members are there in the Congressional Black Caucus?

There are no black republicans yet.

But the black caucus themselves admited that they were more of a third party than they were democrats. If the black caucus were a third party, they would have a lot more chance of getting my vote than the democrats, simply because I've heard them speak on c-span, and they sound a lot more sound.

Quote:
Republicans do not think the core of their party will support electing African Americans to Congress.

They're running blacks lately. It takes time to build up that base. But you'll see. Charles Barkley intends to run on a GOP ticket, possibly in '08. He'll probably win too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 5:21 PM

DREAMTROVE

Geezer,

not changing the subject. "The media leans left" isn't news.

partly I posted because I'm a troll, and Kaneman irritates me. But I could have joined in the chorus. The BBC is big to admit to it, but what they really should do is fix the problem.

The Tories are really a kick ass party. If the GOP were more like the Tories they'd probably get my vote all the time.

But lately, they're being like Tony Blair, which is worse than old labour.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 9:25 PM

RIGHTEOUS9

Dreamtrove,

first thanks for taking the time to reply. Looks like you were busy.

You certainly haven't convinced me that the media leans left.

I get that you hate Clinton. I think you have some valid points. But you can hardly use him as the poster child for Liberal or left wing. I assume your argument would go like this. Clinton and Bush are globalists. Communists are globalists, therefore lefties are globalists -

but that is hardly representative of the left today, which is against things like Nafta and Cafta, and outsourcing. At least half of us are against illegal immigration (if the posts at Democratic Underground can be any guage,) though I would never pick that answer in a poll without being allowed to clarify myself.

How about we come to terms on this one by leaving out both conservative and liberal when we talk about the media. The Republican party has definitely abandoned its conservative base. The DLC of the Democratic Party is only different in that it is more subtle. Both seem to be tools for the biggest lobbyists out there.

So fine, the media isn't liberal or conservative, but it is corporate. Corporate interests have no party affiliation any more than they have an ideology. Liberal or conservative isn't the issue, money is.

You want to continue to pretend that it isn't unconstrained capitalism that has corrupted our government and our media, but communism, or globalism. Like globalism isn't a pet of big corporate interests?

when we look at the winners in all of this administration's policies, there is an obvious trend. Bush isn't his own man, he's the puppet of our most megalithic corporations, and they are doing just stellar for their part in getting him elected.

Why oh why won't you allow yourself to see the corporate ownership of our government? The evidence is not hard to come by. Everything points to it, but you would go with 'liberal academia is trying to conform everybody to its will.' Okay...

so it was the liberal academia that wanted to go to war in Iraq? Not GE? which happens to own NBC? Not Carlile? Not Halliburton? Not Exxon?

Look, I will promise to try, though it will be hard, not to refer to everything perpetrated by the GOP as conservative, because I truly see that that isn't fair, if you promise to quit confusing liberal with communist...equating Bush to democrats, and jumping on the dittohead bandwagon and painting Hillary and Bill as liberals when they are far from it.

P.s.

Not sure how the media can love labor but globalism more. Aren't they somewhat exclusive? as in globalism hurts labor? Or do I not understand something here?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 28, 2006 10:26 PM

SOUPCATCHER

dreamtrove,

There's a lot of stuff that is written on these boards that, while I don't buy, I don't challenge. Mostly it's in areas where I have little knowledge. But when someone makes a claim that is clearly opposite of evidence, I sometimes feel the need to challenge. Now maybe it's just that I haven't been paying attention, but I've yet to see you document your claims on a consistent basis. And you make a lot of claims. We can take your word for it. But it's like charging something on a credit card. At some point you have to make a minimum payment. That is the background behind my statement that you're starting to lose credibility with me. Most of your claims I have no clue about. But some are just plain wrong. And that's starting to influence my opinion of the others.

That said, let me try to clarify some things. When I use the term movement conservatives, I'm specifically referring to authoritarian followers (people that share many traits with the authoritarian followers found in some fundamentalist religions). The Republican party is currently controlling the government in large part because of the support they receive from movement conservatives. Movement conservatives may or may not support policies that are traditionally considered conservative. As we have seen with this particular President, it's a grab bag. The legislation that has directly benefitted the credit card industries, the health insurers, the pharmaceutical companies, the oil companies, etc. is rock solid conservative stuff. As is the tax cutting. But the expansion of government and spending like a drunken sailor are about as far from traditional conservative policies as you could get.

But here's where the craziness of the movement conservatives kicks in. They have gotten to define what conservative is. To millions of Americans, George Bush is conservative. And anyone who disagrees with George Bush is not. Matter of fact, the second they disagree with Bush they become liberal. Now this is becoming less pronounced the lower Bush's popularity ratings fall. But there was a time where all you had to do was utter one complaint and a lifetime of statements was thrown out the window. Bob Barr was called a liberal. Bruce Bartlett. Andrew Sullivan. Hell, I even read a statement from a prominent conservative pundit that Tom DeLay failed because his policies, towards the end, were too liberal. This is crazy talk. And these are the people who are the current backbone of the Republican party.

There are principled conservatives out there. But they've lost control of the Republican party. Which is probably for the best, in my opinion. Because if they were still in total command we'd have even more tax cuts, and more corporate welfare, and more direct assaults on the middle class. As it is, it's going to take us a long time to recover. That's assuming we get the chance.

As far as whether or not liberals engage in this type of behavior, you have to get pretty far to the left before you start seeing authoritarianism like what is the bread and butter of the current Republican party. It's always something that needs to be watched out for. The next time the liberals control the government (which is roughly about the time when hell freezes over) you can bet I'll be watching like a hawk. But I kick against the pricks. And right now, the pricks are the Republicans who are running everything. And running it poorly.

This is getting longer than I usually like to post but I wanted to get in two more thoughts. What makes something a conspiracy theory, in my opinion, is that it is a theory that goes against the "official" version. The official version is what is put out in the books and press releases and interviews. The official version isn't always right. Quite often, it leaves out a lot of the details. And sometimes it's about as close to wrong as you can get. But to label every theory as a conspiracy theory just muddies the waters. For example, it's not a conspiracy theory to say that PNAC laid out the plans for the Iraq War years in advance because it was all done in plain sight. The report was out, nobody was trying to hide anything.

Similiarly, it's not a conspiracy theory to say that prominent conservative think tanks were started by large corporations and wealthy conservatives to serve as a counter to an anti-business bias in academia. It's right out there in plain sight. Just read what the official historian for the Heritage Foundation has to say about his interviews with Joseph Coors. Nobody is trying to hide any of this information. The model for the modern conservative think tank is the Heritage Foundation, which was started by Joseph Coors in 1973 with a quarter of a million dollars. He relates that he was inspired to create a think tank after he read Lewis Powell's memo.

To say that think tanks are a creation of academics goes against the evidence. There are a few examples of academic started institutions, the Hoover Institute pops into my head since I used to walk past it every day (and sometimes had the urge to make the ward against evil sign in that general direction), but the vast majority of the most influential conservative think tanks follow the Heritage Foundation model. Think of them as business sponsored idea factories. Or public relation houses. Or, to be less charitable, conservative propaganda machines.

I've got more to say about how Republicans use race to cater to bigotry. And about how the Democratic Party establishment sucks (or, how anything that comes out of Washington, DC sucks whether it's Republican or Democrat). Or how I'm geniunely enthused by what's happening out here in the West with some more progressive Democratic candidates. Or how I've given up hope on the Republican party. Or how I may even register as a Democrat after this election.

Maybe another time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 6:17 PM

DREAMTROVE

Righteous,

Quote:
You certainly haven't convinced me that the media leans left.

Not my job to do so. The media doesn't always lean left in "elect a democrat", but it was much rougher on bush than on clinton, for what was basically the same set of policies. but i can't make the argument, it's like making an argument for why the constitution is a good idea. it's more time and effort than it probably merits, it's pretty well accepted that the media leans left.

look at it this way. if the left as a society believes in politically correct, with no moral restrictions, but social top down control, police et al, and the right believes in each society has the right to set its own rules, but that the people should behave by those rules, with moral limitations, but local social structure, faith, and the free market - pull yourself up by your bootstraps., then which does the media generally tend to represent?

Quote:
I get that you hate Clinton.

I try not to hate, it's against my religion. I just get annoyed when people give him this big benefit of the doubt that he doesn't deserve. I don't see the difference between him and bush. which isn't a challenge, i just don't believe a strong difference exists.

Quote:
I think you have some valid points. But you can hardly use him as the poster child for Liberal or left wing.

oh, sure, not meaning to... by all means no, Clinton is not a liberal - i get that. just like Bush isn't a conservative, these guys are something else.
But the media is sometimes not that swift, and a lot of the rank and file who are about 80% or so democrats will be thinking "democrats in office=good" and so won't attack when maybe they should

Quote:
I assume your argument would go like this. Clinton and Bush are globalists. Communists are globalists, therefore lefties are globalists -

nah. don't put words in my mouth. Globalist is its own thing. These particular globalists derived their globalism from communism. They are followers of the shachtmanite trotsky thing. They're terrible communists, sure. but they are their own thing.
Just I don't buy this media image that this mutant commie thing is by definition "conservative" because it won a republican presidential primaries and some congressional seats. It did that by playing fast and loose with christian scripture and got the monkey to dance.

Quote:
but that is hardly representative of the left today,

no doubt at all

Quote:
which is against things like Nafta and Cafta, and outsourcing.

not necessarily so. These are, after all, all positions which are supported by right wing third parties such as Reform and Constitution. The centrist 'Libertarian' party supports them, as do the some of the greens. a few progressive dem voter groups do, but there's very little mainstream liberal opposition to nafta.

I support outsourcing btw. I think that the only way we are going to end world poverty is by fostering healthy economies in third world countries, which is what the vast majority of oursourcing is doing. There's some abuses, sure, and local law enforcement should deal with those. And don't think that they don't want to, btw, businesses like walmart are in violation of local labor laws everywhere they go. we should just stop protecting them. My position would be: if you go somewhere and break the law, don't come crying to us.

Quote:
At least half of us are against illegal immigration (if the posts at Democratic Underground can be any guage,) though I would never pick that answer in a poll without being allowed to clarify myself.

So is the third party right. I'm indifferent on the issue. I think a wall between us and mexico is a dumb idea.

Quote:
How about we come to terms on this one by leaving out both conservative and liberal when we talk about the media.

it's a wedge issue. it was resurrected by the globalists to divide their opponents on both sides of the aisle, to create political confusion. similar to the purpose of the abortion argument.

Quote:
The Republican party has definitely abandoned its conservative base.

You don't say? :)

Quote:
The DLC of the Democratic Party is only different in that it is more subtle. Both seem to be tools for the biggest lobbyists out there.

quite possibly

Quote:
So fine, the media isn't liberal or conservative, but it is corporate.

whoa! hold it right there. the media is hardly just pro-business everywhere. the media is much closer to being a partisan tool or a govt. propoganda machine than a business beacon. It's pro certain businesses, but the corporations aren't setting this message.
Wheh you say "corporate" you're cutting a wide swath across america. Stem Cells Inc. is a corporation. So is General Motors, as is Cisco Systems, Google, and Applebees. The media bias is specifically in favor of a few things
1. centralist power
2. political correctness
3. itself, whatever that happens to be. eg. television hates the internet with a firey passion.

Quote:
Corporate interests have no party affiliation any more than they have an ideology. Liberal or conservative isn't the issue, money is.

Your corporate here is very broad. Most corporations do have an ideology, many maybe most have a partisan bias. Many may be liberal or conservative.

Quote:
You want to continue to pretend that it isn't unconstrained capitalism that has corrupted our government and our media, but communism, or globalism. Like globalism isn't a pet of big corporate interests?

Oh no it's not a pawn. corporations are a pawn. Sometimes they're profiteers, but globalism is not about corporations deciding they want globalism, it's about looneys trying to take over the world. Those same looneys own most of those corporations that are in on the deal. If a business outsources, that doesn't mean they invade iraq. global market is a reality, not a political agenda. globalism is about political conquest. not just military, but yes political.

Quote:
when we look at the winners in all of this administration's policies, there is an obvious trend.

then point it out, because corporate america has been in a lot of pain over these policies.

Quote:
Bush isn't his own man, he's the puppet of our most megalithic corporations, and they are doing just stellar for their part in getting him elected.

this is an absurd distortion. These companies are the corporate arms of the oligarchy. They have been moving from public life to the private sector to avoid democratic controls, but these are hardly free market entities. We're talking about a bunch of businesses big only in $#s becuase they get lots of cash from the admin. because they have essentially only one customer: the govt.
pfizer, merck, are the same way, most of their business is one customer: the govt. same for all of the military industrial complex.

Quote:
Why oh why won't you allow yourself to see the corporate ownership of our government?

this is just so much more complicated. The plan these people have is to merge corporations and govt. that's corporatism. but your line of logic is headed towards "corporations are evil"
corporations are we the people. the only thing which is not free and open to we the people is govt. in our new rigged system, just like it isn't in a socialist system.

Quote:
The evidence is not hard to come by. Everything points to it, but you would go with 'liberal academia is trying to conform everybody to its will.' Okay...

well it is. hence yale created time cbs and viacom, and they bought everything they now own. all of those media entities were once independent before the big evil thing came.

Quote:
so it was the liberal academia that wanted to go to war in Iraq? Not GE? which happens to own NBC? Not Carlile? Not Halliburton? Not Exxon?

not ge, no. it's carlyle with a y. exxon is part of the conspiracy, big oil is hardly much of the corporate world, on an employee basis. maybe a few millionths.
Halliburton is barely a corporation these days, its the neocon cash cow of a money laundering operation.

Quote:
Look, I will promise to try, though it will be hard, not to refer to everything perpetrated by the GOP as conservative, because I truly see that that isn't fair, if you promise to quit confusing liberal with communist...

not condusion. bush is a commie because his backers follow a cooked up commie take over plan planned by the trosky commies back in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

Commies aren't liberal. I wouldn't make that mistake. What, someone looks at the USSR and China and says "what a bunch of hippy liberals" ? I don't think so.

Quote:
equating Bush to democrats, and jumping on the dittohead bandwagon and painting Hillary and Bill as liberals when they are far from it.

sure, i didn't say they were. The left-leaning media doesn't necessarily know the difference though.

Quote:
Not sure how the media can love labor but globalism more. Aren't they somewhat exclusive? as in globalism hurts labor? Or do I not understand something here?

"Labour" or I as should more properly have said "New Labour" - a political party in the UK.
not 'labor' as in jobs that americans or europeans may remember once having had.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 6:58 PM

DREAMTROVE

Soup,

Quote:
The legislation that has directly benefitted the credit card industries, the health insurers, the pharmaceutical companies, the oil companies, etc. is rock solid conservative stuff.

No, it's not. true conservatives believe in fiscal responsibility, and wouldn't allow insurance and credit cards to run amok on people's finances without accountability, this isn't a very conservative way to practice.
By the book, frugal, orderly, are conservative concepts. This isn't what's happening now in the financial sector, it's a free for all. mobster capitalism. I hope you see where that isn't conservative. It's libertarian in a sense, not liberal, but not conservative in the strictest sense.
And I don't see how a huge $600 B healthcare welfare spending bill is conservative.

Quote:
As is the tax cutting.

yay tax cuts. one thing bush did that was good.

Quote:
But the expansion of government and spending like a drunken sailor are about as far from traditional conservative policies as you could get.

thank you.

Quote:
But here's where the craziness of the movement conservatives kicks in. They have gotten to define what conservative is.

fortunately, several books have been written on the subject

Quote:
To millions of Americans, George Bush is conservative.

true, some people don't know who berry goldwater and teddy roosevelt were

Quote:
And anyone who disagrees with George Bush is not. Matter of fact, the second they disagree with Bush they become liberal.

happens to me daily on this forum

Quote:
Now this is becoming less pronounced the lower Bush's popularity ratings fall.

Oh, i thought they'd already hit zero

Quote:
But there was a time where all you had to do was utter one complaint and a lifetime of statements was thrown out the window. Bob Barr was called a liberal. Bruce Bartlett. Andrew Sullivan. Hell, I even read a statement from a prominent conservative pundit that Tom DeLay failed because his policies, towards the end, were too liberal. This is crazy talk. And these are the people who are the current backbone of the Republican party.

what can i say, the party is a mess.

Quote:
There are principled conservatives out there. But they've lost control of the Republican party. Which is probably for the best, in my opinion. Because if they were still in total command we'd have even more tax cuts, and more corporate welfare, and more direct assaults on the middle class. As it is, it's going to take us a long time to recover. That's assuming we get the chance.

I don't think you have a grasp on what principled conservatives are about. Sure, there would be tax cuts. but there would probably not be a lot in the way of new spending bills. so there would not be 'more corporate welfare'

- speaking of which -

Why don't democrats see this? They stomp for a "national healthcare plan" all the time. Numbers like $2 trillion dollars is bandied about often by its opponents with very little to gainsay that number. Who exactly do you think is going to be getting that $2 trillion?
national healthcare is the biggest corporate welfare bill of all time. What we need to do is break up the cabal that's keep the prices through the roof, so people can afford healthcare, so medicare can afford to pick up the tab for the poor.
But throwing money at the problem is no kind of solution at all, it will in fact make things worse, prices will go up, taxes will go up, and fat cats will get fatter.

Quote:
As far as whether or not liberals engage in this type of behavior, you have to get pretty far to the left before you start seeing authoritarianism like what is the bread and butter of the current Republican party.

nah, i just have to go to clinton, who is maybe one step to the left of center. Or joe lieberman. in fact, this sort of thing is pretty typical of the democrats. sure, the GOP is shameful atm, no argument from me.

Quote:
It's always something that needs to be watched out for. The next time the liberals control the government (which is roughly about the time when hell freezes over) you can bet I'll be watching like a hawk.

good. Obama is a shoe in for '08. he'll get both houses, and hillary will be his vp. i'll wager on that. and they'll f^&k up with flying colors, it will be like bush/cheney never left, which will hardly be ironic, because they won't have left. they'll just have shifted back to the private sector.

Quote:
But I kick against the pricks. And right now, the pricks are the Republicans who are running everything. And running it poorly.

Quote:
This is getting longer than I usually like to post but I wanted to get in two more thoughts. What makes something a conspiracy theory, in my opinion, is that it is a theory that goes against the "official" version.

I tend to go with it's a conspiracy theory when the threads require some guesswork, and can't be drawn together with known proven data. Sometimes I use the term sarcastically which i think was this case.

Quote:
The official version is what is put out in the books and press releases and interviews. The official version isn't always right. Quite often, it leaves out a lot of the details. And sometimes it's about as close to wrong as you can get. But to label every theory as a conspiracy theory just muddies the waters. For example, it's not a conspiracy theory to say that PNAC laid out the plans for the Iraq War years in advance because it was all done in plain sight. The report was out, nobody was trying to hide anything.

no, sure, it's not. I went to their page daily before 9-11. bear in mind though, that PNAC laid out this disasterously bad *plan* *for* invading iraq, not the *idea* *of* invading iraq, which was cooked up by the globalists in the carter admin - at least three of whom i hasten to point out, were the same people. but it's a far cry from "the gop cooked this up"

Quote:
Similiarly, it's not a conspiracy theory to say that prominent conservative think tanks were started by large corporations and wealthy conservatives to serve as a coutnter to an anti-business bias in academia.

but this leads to a conspiracy theory, that this network of think tanks is orchestrating a pro-business agenda. the proof of the puddin' is in the eatin'. the result is radically anti-business, and ideas like the net-non-neutrality are obvious examples, the endless pro-merger, pro-monopoly, anti-competition result, as well as the pro-coroprate/govt-merger and the pro-top-down-totalitarian-control-state all go to this conclusion.

I'm not arguing that "there are no corporate people in this conspiracy" that would be absurd. Sure there are. There are a ton. there's corruption everywhere.

But this conspiracy theory is deceptive in that it drives the reader to an erroneous conclusion: "corporations are united behind the neocon agenda, and they created it" which are both patently false. the desired end result has to be the old "corporations are evil" of the socialist fantasy. It's like counting deaths in the bible to see that God kills 2 million and Satan kills like ten people. Corporations don't do the evil of the world, and they do almost all of the good. Govts. do the evil.

Did corporate people and whole corporations join in the mad power scramble? sure. Many of those are run by the afformentioned thugs, but some are just opportunist. but it's not the conservative base that supports free market capitalism which is this supporting agenda to forward that goal, because that's not where this train is headed.

Quote:
To say that think tanks are a creation of academics goes against the evidence.

most of these people have ties to particular educational institutions, also no secret, search those people in those think tanks and you find they met each other at yale or the u of c or stamford, and they had clubs there. often they had a teacher in common who led them on the idea, like leo strauss. This is where the idea was born, constructed, and set on course for its goal. Those people, sure, collected funding from corporations in the name of doing something for them.

Quote:
I've got more to say about how Republicans use race to cater to bigotry.

save it, there's nothing uniquely republican about this sort of thing. but I remember Bush having people call houses and say "mccain has a black baby" so i know it happens.

Quote:
And about how the Democratic Party establishment sucks

glad you see this. They're a pathetic party. if the left were serious it would develop a new party and starve the democrats into bankruptcy. I am beginning to think it's time for conservatives to do the same to the gop.

Quote:
(or, how anything that comes out of Washington, DC sucks whether it's Republican or Democrat).

sure

Quote:
Or how I'm geniunely enthused by what's happening out here in the West with some more progressive Democratic candidates. Or how I've given up hope on the Republican party. Or how I may even register as a Democrat after this election.

Maybe another time.

things are looking pretty bad i have to admit, but at the moment here in ny, the local gop is way ahead of the local dems on 'how to run a state' but, sure, the national gop has gone nuts.
I intend to contact some of those real conservatives left and see if there's hope of organizing and anti-neocon resistance, in the gop, and if there isn't , then if there's hope of doing on out of the gop.

I still think it's possible for a left-right alliance, but it means some hard compromises will have to be made. I don't think the left is ready to do that yet, they still have hope that the evil is a republican thing, and the dems will save them, i think they missed the whole clinton thing. that's where the dem bias of the media failed to tell them about iraq, rwanda, etc.

but atm, i think there's more hope in a 3rd party than in a gop reform, but i haven't given up hope.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 7:44 PM

RIGHTEOUS9

Thanks for the reply man..

I see I got myself in a position where I have to clarify what I meant by pro corporate.

I would definitely agree that this government entity is not pro-corporate in the sense of being pro-competition, or pro free-enterprise.

But the biggest, wealthiest companies have a lot of sway over this administration's policies. Do you think its a coincidence that the Credit Card companies wrote the bankruptcy legislation that was passed by both houses and signed into law by the President? These companies are the government, and whether the people at the top are cronies of them, or have personal investments themselves in these monster corporations is splitting hairs. The point is this government is bought and sold by greed.

That was also my point about companies not having an ideology. Their ideology seems to follow the money. That is definitely an over-broad brush to paint American Corporations with, but I think it fits more often than it doesn't.

By the way, I'm surprised that you wouldn't think GE has a horse in this race. Isn't it like the second biggest military contractor? Don't they have a say over who they run on MSNBC? Didn't they get rid of Donahue even though his ratings were better than anythinng else on the channel before the last election?(NOt using that as definitive proof mind you...but certainly to show the conflict of interest we have in this country when 5 mega corporations own all of the mainstream news outlets.)

I don't buy that the ideology is driving the politics as much as the money is driving the ideology. What about that perspective doesn't seem reasonable to you? Couldn't it be possible our woes are not the result of an ideology that emulates communism, but of allowing the free market to reach its logical conclusion of a handful of megacompanies with their grips on government and our news sources, and a genuine monetary incentive to push globalization, deregulation, war for resources and profiteering, the obfuscation of global warming....yada, yada yada.

Here's a question, how, if this is about ideology but not money, does denying the reality of global warming fit into the picture? What ideological persepective denies global warming? for what purpose?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 30, 2006 7:44 PM

RIGHTEOUS9

double

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 6:10 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Citizen,

Argh.

Okay. Now seriously

Why is Bush in any way a leftist?

I've said it only about a hundred times, and you keep mischaracterizing it in the most simple minded way possible. Which, quite frankly, is dishonest. You know my position, and yet you insist on this ruse to paint it as something else because that other thing is easier to attack.

No I honestly think that it comes from a deep psychological need of yours to blame 'the otherside' for things you don't like and attribute things you do like to the label you like and you rationalise that. For you it seems your rationalisations are undeniable, well thoughtout and compelling. For me, and it would seem others since I am far from the only person to come to this conclusion, they are sketchy at best.

Quote:
Bush's backers are the neocons, people born of the political left. Disown them as you are free to do. But don't deny us on the right the right to disown them as well.

They left the left and went to the right...

So if they did things you'd like I'm sure you'd say they left their misguided leftist routes behind and joined the right.

Quote:
A list of Bush's leftist accomplishments:

1. Wars to spread freedom, a favorite clinton thing also, what i call social militarism, enforcing social reforms through military action, a classic leftist tactic. Not "liberal" in any libertarian individualist sense, but leftists is a commie fascists sense.

Fascism was rightist, I know you don't agree, but it's you against pretty much everyone else there. I've heard your rationalisations as for why and it's a whole long list of "this is exclusivly left because I say so, and it's part of fascism so fascism must be leftist", see above.

Quote:
2. Big big big govt. spend spend spend

Rightwing governments do this too.

Quote:
3. A national healthcare plan in the form of the perscription drug benefit plan., big spending.

Yep national healthcare system is leftist, and when done properly its cheaper and gets far better results than private only.

Quote:
4. centralized control, such as the dept of homeland security.

Isn't leftist, in fact centralised control was invented by the right, monarchies are just this and they are right-wing.

Quote:
5. lack of support for american business initatives in favor of large govt. employment projects

[[]sarcasm[]]Yes American buisness has done terribly under Bush.[[]/sarcasm[]]

Quote:
A democrat could *run* on this, and a clinton and kerry have run on things not too different from it. It's not what Bush ran on. Bush said back in 2000 he was going to set aside 60 billion dollars to distribute among the poor. He said a lot of stuff, such as he wouldn't go to war. He pledged to support small business and states rights. He said he was a christian. In retrospect, I think he was lying his ass off.

So? The Democrates, by international standards are pretty much rightwing anyway. They're certainly right of our left wing. They're left of the tories but not by much.

Now I don't understand American politics that closely but are you saying that the left doesn't support state rights?

Would that make Lincoln and the Republican party (at the time) Left wing?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:34 PM

DREAMTROVE

Citizen,

I don't need to bow to your hooey psychological analysis of me. Essentially, you're just a kid, and though a reasonably bright one, not a genius. You need to talk less and listen more. You spend a lot of time and effort telling other people what's goign on with them, which really you don't know.

I have no psychological "need" to blame someone. I say these things for two reasons:

1. because they're true.
2. because I want the left to wake up and join us on the right against the evil thing.

Instead, what you guys are doing is supporting the evil thing whenever it stands up and says "we are liberals" which it does about half the time.

You need to be able to see the evil potential of a clinton govt. rather than just blame conservatives for this disaster. This disaster was a disaster long before bush came into office, and without change, it's going to be that way long after he leaves.

Next,

The so-called neocons never "left the left" they are mostly still democrats. They got some republicans with them, and some of their own became republicans. They are now a bipartisan group. They did not "move from left to right"

Quote:
Fascism was rightist, I know you don't agree, but it's you against pretty much everyone else there.

This is probably the dumbest thing you've ever posted. And you keep posting it.

The fascists ran for govt. on the left-wing ticket. This is a historical fact. Fascists were a breed of socialist. This is also a historical fact. Fascists favored big govt, social programs, heavy govt. regulations and opposed a free market and individual rights. This is also a historical fact.

There's nothing in here that's my opinion. I don't spend a lot of time calling the left Nazi, but the Nazis *were* the left of their time. The junkers were the conservative ticket in germany, and were perfectly in line with the old GOP or the Tories.

There's no grey area here, history is pretty cut and dried.

Quote:
Quote:
Big big big govt. spend spend spend
Rightwing governments do this too.

It's not a conservative value. Bush does it.

Quote:
[sarcasm]Yes American buisness has done terribly under Bush.[/sarcasm]

Your brain isn't even connected to your fingers, is it?

btw, the left laughs at states rights openly and frequently in america, but they do so less now that Bush has trampled them. Five years ago it was still a running joke among democrats. supporters of states rights were viewed as supporters of slavery.

Lincoln was an ass. He's been written into history as a hero, but he wasn't. Republicans were trying very hard to end slavery, which was not a state's right, but they were trying to do so without killing a million people.

If you notice I back reference John Quincy Adams as the first 'republican' which I do basically because I think Lincoln was an ass. Sure, he succeeded, but that's like saying that the nukes succeeded in stopping the japanese or the soviets stopped germany. In an all-machiavellian world, sure.

Quote:
monarchies are just this and they are right-wing.

whatever. you know that that 18th century left-right dichotomy has no relation to this one. our system not an evolution of that system, it replaced it.

Central control has always been a left value. they openly support the idea almost univerally. the only exception might be the libdems, but in america, we call the libdems "a right wing party" or as my brother put it "england is a place where a conservative republican is called a liberal democrat"

I admit that american democrats are pathetic liberals on an international scale. But even so, the american green party is a liberal party. we have some socialist parties here also, that are self-defined left wing. we have the progressives, who don't have a party yet, but are basically left wing and are probably the strongest 'real liberal' movement in america

As for the GOP and was it once a liberal party, that's a subject of a much longer debate. It really depends on your use of the world 'liberal'

The position: i'm a liberal and a conservative - was that of thomas jefferson, and adams built his party on jefferson, franklin, adams sr, and george clinton, as sort of a guides. There were some others in there as well, but the idea of liberal and conservative was commonly used in republican circles well into the 20th century. After the democrats started using the word a lot, republicans dropped it in favor of 'libertarian'

- but all of this confuses the issue.

The party of John Quincy Adams, Teddy Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge and Richard Nixon, is really remarkably consistant in its ideological world view. There's very little change at all in republicanism over 200 years. There are some slight modifications following a steady pattern:

"republicanism is everything it was *plus* this new thing"

And so it went for centuries, making a long laundry list. There was never an "ideological flip". Roosevelt added "conservation", Taft added "internationalism", Eisenhower added "containment" etc.

sure there were a few mis-steps. Hoover decided he wanted to throw out all the old rules and restructure america based on european socialism (his stated goal, and him a republican) - the result was a disaster. So after that, the GOP decided to forget Hoover and go back to Coolidge, and build on that. Which is precisely what I hope they would do in a post-Bush world.

I take some strong pro-capitalist positions because I believe their right, ie. best for everyone, but I'm not really that hard line.

I would probably compromise on some social programs if you and I were in govt. But in general, with the american democrats , and sure, this latest crop of republicans, social program usually means two things and two things only:

1. social control
2. corporate welfare

and this is what i see in their day to day implementation. If govt. fell into the abyss one day, all of a suddenlike, america would benefit a thousand fold. If corporate america were to fall into the abyss, america would grind to a halt.

are there corporations run amok which need controlling? sure.

is the govt. doing that job? not at all.

big oil, big pharm, MSM, insurance, AMA, even real estate dev., is ridden with corruption. the banking industry is seriously flawed, and logging is out of control. This doesn't mean we should repeal the 14th amendment (sic) or take away corporation's rights. That's like saying because there are killers out there we should suspend the bill of rights

The far left is always on the edge waiting for the chance to destroy the corporation as an entity, which is just a terrible idea.

Equally, this Bush/Clinton thing "corporatism" is a terrible idea. It was terrible when Benito Mussolini came up with the idea, and it still sucks.

We need to apply the laws already on the books and break up these monopolies, protect the customers rights (which btw, is what the 14th amendment was really about. the court's interpretation of it is skewed, but if you read the text, it's more consumer's rights)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 8:01 PM

DREAMTROVE

Righteous,

I think this has been debated down to the dotted i's on this forum already.

part of what we are saying is the same thing:

corporatism is bad.

it's bad for business and it's bad for govt.

GE is local to me and we here little bad about it, but i'd be surprised if there was much bad to hear. people are angry with them for outsourcing.

Quote:
What about that perspective doesn't seem reasonable to you?

Most of it. It's not worth it. It's not worth it from a finanical perspective. It costs far more to invade iraq than it would ever be worth. If they were just about corruption, they'd just rob the till, which sure, they do, but why do anything else? There's a lot of this going on, but you need to follow the money. Jeb Bush embezzled a billion dollars in a medicare fraud, only to turn around and spend it supporting international terrorists in south america. These guys are agenda driven, the stealing of the money is only a means to an end.

the corporate guys here *are* the govt. guys. They're not some hoodlums waiting behind the team, they are the same people. All part of the team, it's one big conspiracy, or a lot of little ones.

Sure, there are some corporate crooks steal billions, but that's the small problem. If I thought the world was the way you paint it, I'd think we had a problem, but no where near the size of the problem I think we actually have.

Quote:
Couldn't it be possible our woes are not the result of an ideology that emulates communism,

It could be, but isn't. I'm pretty sure of myself here. I didn't just make up a theory that this is what's going on, I tracked these people back historically and read what they wrote. Essentially, for the last 30 years, everyone in this set has been blabbing "we're going to take over the world, here's why and here's how" it's not like it's some big mystery, they posted it all over the planet.

Quote:
allowing the free market to reach its logical conclusion of a handful of megacompanies with their grips on government and our news sources,

This is a logical fallacy. The free market strives to emulate evolution, evolution tends toward balance, not the extreme of single species monopoly.

The reason for this is very simple. Evolution isn't just about will, it's about supply and demand. The currency is protein, and as one life form gets a majority of it, it becomes the principle target food source.

Eating monopolies would be the natural reaction. If microsoft owned 90% of everything, companies would come up to provide services for microsoft, it's employees, to compete with microsoft, to steal its best employees even to sabotage it, until eventually, microsoft was no long the dominant institution.

Sure, economics isn't the natual order, it only tries to emulate it, which is why you make rules. But even as is, i'm confident that the big fish will be eaten by the little fish.

Quote:
and a genuine monetary incentive to push globalization, deregulation, war for resources and profiteering, the obfuscation of global warming....yada, yada yada.

I just don't think this is what's going on, and I feel as if I've really really dug.

The oil sickness is much worse than just corporate greed. These loons actually think they can own the entire world's oil supply, and then hold the world hostage, and they are panicking because they're terribly afraid oil will be replaced. There's a lot of money in oil, sure, but not *that* much.

The war in Iraq has cost us in total related expenses about $2T. of that, maybe $120B in oil has come out, and another $100B in contract fraud. Add the Halliburton windfall, and you have about $1/4T. So that's about 1/8 fat in this operation.

If you were in just to rob the public till and do nothing else, you'd think of something better. It's easy. Just think about it.

Project rebuild america:

We are going to rebuild the inner cities and the infastructure of America, roads and trains everywhere, inner city firehouses, police stations, real school buildings and universities. apartment complexes and condos will replace "the projects" and town houses will replace trailer parks.

Contract awarded to Halliburton.

total cost $2T. profit margin after subcontracting etc., maybe 50%. that's a trillion dollars.

And no one will hate you, (no one sane) or oppose you. Yay Halliburton! the people would sing, and dance in the streets.

If I were Halliburton, that's what I would have done. And I don't think they're dumb. I think there were plenty of people in Halliburton who pushed for this sort of thing, but the agenda monkeys weren't buying it. They have like one infrastructure reconstruction contract in virginia which has maybe gone through.

But if there's a halliburton contract for something which forwards the agenda, then bingo, it's through. What's that about? It's about Halliburton is riding the train, but they're not driving it. The same goes for all of the corporate players, even all of them collectively.

We have multiple problems, and the one which you have pointed out is a big one, and I don't deny its existance. But we have a problem which is so-o-o much worse than that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 1:26 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Citizen,

I don't need to bow to your hooey psychological analysis of me. Essentially, you're just a kid, and though a reasonably bright one, not a genius. You need to talk less and listen more. You spend a lot of time and effort telling other people what's goign on with them, which really you don't know.

I don't need to bow to your bullshit brow beating of me.

Uhuh, maybe I'm just a stupid punk kid or something, I defiantly won't truly understand the reasoning behind what you've written that eloquently proves how it's their fault.

Well I knew you'd go here next, for someone who doesn't really know what you're all about I sure did guess your next bit of BS pretty well.

You know you tell me I need to listen more, it's about time you did. You bring very little to discussion, you turn up, tell everyone socialists did it, Liberals are misguided and that the Conservatives will save the universe from the lefty scourge, then if asked for evidence of anything you say you reply "It's true unbiased fact, I thought everyone knew it" and if pressed "I don't have time, look for evidence to back up my statements yourself". Then if anyone questions you you puff yourself up and tell them they're a punk ass kid who doesn't know what they're talking about. Well fella you aint that big and you aint that scary, I've had bigger brighter more knowledgeable people than you try to brow beat me with that kind of playground bullshit and it won't work. Perhaps you could try telling me "my dads bigger than your dad" next.

Actually I'll go down a bit:
2. because I want the left to wake up and join us on the right against the evil thing.
Like I said, Dreamtroves thought filter:
Left=Evil
Right=Good

Ergo if something is Evil it is leftist, if something is good it is rightist.

You accuse me of always seeing evil coming from the right, well frankly I'm getting sick and tired of listening to your latest delusion. You see the evil ALWAYS coming from the left, the above statement eloquently confirms that. I think 'evil' comes from both sides, I think both the left and right need to move together because both, if given absolute power will be absolutely corrupted. You know this is my position, I've flat out told you it is several times and we actually discussed my reasoning in a previous thread. You post that I think "all the evil comes from the right" when you should know damn well that's not true leads to two possible conclusions. Either you're flat out lying in a transparent attempt to discredit me as a right hating lefty loony, or you can't remember what was said five minutes ago. The latter would certainly explain why you scurry away and repeat the same BS anti left propaganda that was soundly refuted in the previous thread.

You constantly blame the left for everything, George Bush, a Republican, voted for by Republicans, supported by Republicans isn't really a Republican, he's a shadowy Socialist...

So what you're accusing me of is true of you, it's not my problem if you're incapable of critical thinking when looking at yourself or your ideals and prefer to blame everyone else for your imperfections and those of YOUR ideology.

Quote:
The so-called neocons never "left the left" they are mostly still democrats. They got some republicans with them, and some of their own became republicans. They are now a bipartisan group. They did not "move from left to right"

Yes I said you'd say this in my last post. I get it, they're evil in a rightwing party, ergo they must be SOCIALIST INFILTRATORS! DANGER WILL ROBINSON! DANGER!

Quote:
This is probably the dumbest thing you've ever posted. And you keep posting it.

Yes I know dear, agree with Dreamtrove intelligent, disagree with Dreamtrove stupid. Because, after all, Dreamtrove is the supreme intelligence of the universe.

What I find interesting is you take the Nazi's calling themselves national socialists as proof that fascism is leftist but ignore Mussolini calling fascism right wing. I guess when the evidence fits Dreamtrove's personal universe we can listen to it, when it doesn't the evidence is wrong and doesn't exist.

Also Socialist in the name of a government confirms they are socialist, Conservative in Neo-Con, (that's what the 'Con' is short for

) means nothing. Double standrads? Of course not, it's just that, erm, Conservatives are perfect anything imperfect is Socialist, because Dreamtrove says so, that's why.

Quote:
There's no grey area here, history is pretty cut and dried.

Yes it is, you're wrong I'm right get over it all ready. The majority of people agree with me too, it's pretty much you and a few other rightwing left haters on your side. Least you're in the company of like minded people eh.

Quote:
It's not a conservative value. Bush does it.

Just in case anyone missed it, DT's thought process here:
Evil==Left.
Bush==Evil==Left.

Conservatives do this too. Keep running to tell yourself it's really 'Socialist' body snatchers taking over the saintly Conservatives with their socialist Mind Kontrollen. I'd hate to think you gave up your "the left is evil" ideology to live in the real world with the rest of us.

Quote:
Your brain isn't even connected to your fingers, is it?

Least I have a brain to connect dear. I see the big American business making some huge profits, I guess evidence that doesn't fit what you want to see gets ignored, again.

Quote:
whatever. you know that that 18th century left-right dichotomy has no relation to this one. our system not an evolution of that system, it replaced it.

Sure, it proves you wrong so IT has to be a fault because as we all know Dreamtrove is perfect and faultless.

Quote:
He's been written into history as a hero, but he wasn't. Republicans were trying very hard to end slavery, which was not a state's right, but they were trying to do so without killing a million people.

Gotta love retro-active rewriting of history.

Quote:
Central control has always been a left value. they openly support the idea almost univerally. the only exception might be the libdems, but in america, we call the libdems "a right wing party" or as my brother put it "england is a place where a conservative republican is called a liberal democrat"

Or as I put it, America thinks the Democrats are left wing and probably wouldn't know what the left really was or really is if it came up and slapped them in the face with a big book called reality.

Quote:
big oil, big pharm, MSM, insurance, AMA, even real estate dev., is ridden with corruption. the banking industry is seriously flawed, and logging is out of control. This doesn't mean we should repeal the 14th amendment (sic) or take away corporation's rights. That's like saying because there are killers out there we should suspend the bill of rights

You mean do things the left talks about? Oh no you like this so it must be a conservative ideal.

I know how you think better than you do. I get it it, the evil left is corrupting the Righteous right. I've heard it time and time again, but you know what, not buying in to your delusion doesn't make me stupid.

Quote:
This is a logical fallacy. The free market strives to emulate evolution, evolution tends toward balance, not the extreme of single species monopoly.

Oh I couldn't let this go.

Because it's not like Evolution has thrown up one species right now that has a 'monopoly'. A species that has no natural predators but has the 'power' to wipe out pretty much all other species, and it's own enviroment to the point of self extinction.

No Humans haven't evolved at all.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 4:52 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I would probably compromise on some social programs if you and I were in govt. But in general, with the american democrats , and sure, this latest crop of republicans, social program usually means two things and two things only:

1. social control

Can you please provide some examples of the social programs that are actually a method of social control? Not asking for anything sourced. I'm asking for your examples.

Thanks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 6:01 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Press Freedom

I hope I don't have to explain the inverse relationship between free media and bias.

'"Each year new countries in less-developed parts of the world move up the Index to positions above some European countries or the United States. This is good news and shows once again that, even though very poor, countries can be very observant of freedom of expression. Meanwhile the steady erosion of press freedom in the United States, France and Japan is extremely alarming,” Reporters Without Borders said.

The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of “national security” to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his “war on terrorism.” The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media’s right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism.

N° Country Score
1 Finland 0,50
- Iceland 0,50
- Ireland 0,50
- Netherlands 0,50
5 Czech Republic 0,75
6 Estonia 2,00
- Norway 2,00
8 Slovakia 2,50
- Switzerland 2,50
10 Hungary 3,00
- Latvia 3,00
- Portugal 3,00
- Slovenia 3,00
14 Belgium 4,00
- Sweden 4,00
16 Austria 4,50
- Bolivia 4,50
- Canada 4,50
19 Bosnia and Herzegovina 5,00
- Denmark 5,00
- New-Zealand 5,00
- Trinidad and Tobago 5,00
23 Benin 5,50
- Germany 5,50
- Jamaica 5,50
26 Namibia 6,00
27 Lithuania 6,50
- United Kingdom 6,50
29 Costa Rica 6,67
30 Cyprus 7,50
31 South Korea 7,75
32 Greece 8,00
- Mauritius 8,00
34 Ghana 8,50
35 Australia 9,00
- Bulgaria 9,00
- France 9,00
- Mali 9,00
39 Panama 9,50
40 Italy 9,90
41 El Salvador 10,00
- Spain 10,00
43 Taiwan 10,50
44 South Africa 11,25
45 Cape Verde 11,50
- Macedonia 11,50
- Mozambique 11,50
- Serbia and Montenegro 11,50
49 Chile 11,63
50 Israel 12,00
51 Japan 12,50
52 Dominican Republic 12,75
53 Botswana 13,00
- Croatia 13,00
- Tonga 13,00
- United States of America 13,00
57 Uruguay 13,75
58 Fiji 14,00
- Hong-Kong 14,00
- Poland 14,00
- Romania 14,00
62 Central African Republic 14,50
- Cyprus (North) 14,50
- Guinea-Bissau 14,50
- Honduras 14,50
66 Madagascar 15,00
- Togo 15,00
68 Ecuador 15,25
69 Nicaragua 15,50
70 Burkina Faso 16,00
- Kosovo 16,00
- Lesotho 16,00
73 Congo 17,00
- Kuwait 17,00
75 Brazil 17,17
76 Argentina 17,30
77 Mauritania 17,50
- Senegal 17,50
- United Arab Emirates 17,50
80 Albania 18,00
- Qatar 18,00
82 Paraguay 18,25
83 Timor-Leste 18,50
84 Liberia 19,00
85 Moldova 19,17
86 Mongolia 19,25
87 Haiti 19,50
88 Tanzania 19,82
.
.
.
166 Eritrea 97,50
167 Turkmenistan 98,50
168 North Korea 109,00'

http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639'

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 12:09 PM

DREAMTROVE

CItizen

grow up

Rue

thanks, nice post on the fried press.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 12:12 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
CItizen

grow up

Very hypocritical thing for you to say ~~AURaptor~~ Dreamtrove.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 3, 2006 7:17 PM

CENTURY22

A TV network biased?

Wow, who would have thought that possible?

They never lie down.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE