BBC bias

POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, November 4, 2006 05:17
VIEWED: 5923
PAGE 1 of 1

KANEMAN

Thursday, October 26, 2006 1:33 PM (P)

"Yes, we are biased on religion and politics, admit BBC executives" More Here....
"Senior figures admitted that the BBC is guilty of promoting Left-wing views and an anti-Christian sentiment.

They also said that as an organisation it was disproportionately over-represented by gays and ethnic minorities.

It was also suggested that the Beeb is guilty of political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism and of being anti-American and against the countryside.

During the meeting, hosted by Sue Lawley, executives admitted they would happily broadcast the image of a Bible being thrown away - but would not do the same for the Koran."

Is this the main source of news and information in England or is it still The Sun? Explains a lot.

DREAMTROVE

Thursday, October 26, 2006 1:48 PM (P)

It's the media, what else is new?

RUE

Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:48 PM (P)

Link please? I already have one, and I read the ENITRE story which consists of a random bits of quotes from people who have no ax to grind. But a link would allow people to put your 'news' in context.

For example, while the story says 'senior executives' there are only three actual quotes from low level employees.

GEEZER

Thursday, October 26, 2006 6:16 PM (P)

Here's the best link I could find. Still seems that they are admitting to bias. In this, they are admitting that they're like every other news outlet in the world. I stll enjoy the BBC website, I just know I have to accept that they have a viewpoint they're supporting.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23371617-details/We+are+bia
sed%252C+admit+the+stars+of+BBC+News/article.do

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KANEMAN

Thursday, October 26, 2006 6:30 PM (P)

Ruse,
sounds to me like a little more than bit players. A leaked memo?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_artic
le_id=411977&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=

RUE

Thursday, October 26, 2006 6:36 PM (P)

And here is a list of the BBC's "crimes":

'It (a 'leaked account') reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC's 'diversity tsar', wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.'

You have to wonder when they fail to link or make original sources available - like the 'leaked account'. And if this is the most damning stuff they could cull from the entire account, it's pretty lame. I mean - really. Which broadcaster wouldn't interview bin Laden? it'd be a ratings coup.

KANEMAN

Thursday, October 26, 2006 6:44 PM (P)

"At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians."

"The BBC is believed to be taking a more critical look at itself because it fears if it does not, its regulation could be removed from its board of governors and handed over to the independent regulator Ofcom."

Again, it sounds like a little more is going on then if a news anchor can wear a vail..They seem to be addressing "their" problem, and seem aware they have one. And you, the ruse, try to down play it. Like it's made up..They are admitting it, maybe you should to.....Well, it's true.......

RUE

Thursday, October 26, 2006 6:49 PM (P)

The fact that they hire gays and minorites makes the BAAADDD. OOOHHHHhhhh ... And the former empire acknowledges other cultures .... GASP ! UNTHINKABLE!
"They are admiting it" or, some people report they had a meeting, or perhaps three low level people were airing their prejudices ... it's really hard to tell without THE ACTUAL REPORT.

KANEMAN

Thursday, October 26, 2006 6:53 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The fact that they hire gays and minorites makes the BAAADDD. OOOHHHHhhhh ... And the former empire acknowledges other cultures .... GASP ! UNTHINKABLE!

No, the fact that they allow those groups to totally infect British news and information with their bias...is. Sad that you can't see that...Ah, nothing like drinking Koolaid while wearing blinders.......Right, Ruse?

CITIZEN

Thursday, October 26, 2006 6:55 PM (P)

In a secret meeting with FOX executives they admited they were biased:
"Yes we hate everyone except the religious right, and we want them dead, what's wrong with that?" They were quoted to say by some guy.

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.

GEEZER

Thursday, October 26, 2006 6:59 PM (P)

"In one of a series of discussions, executives were asked to rule on how they would react if the controversial comedian Sacha Baron Cohen ) known for his offensive characters Ali G and Borat - was a guest on the programme Room 101.

On the show, celebrities are invited to throw their pet hates into a dustbin and it was imagined that Baron Cohen chose some kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Bible and the Koran.

Nearly everyone at the summit, including the show's actual producer and the BBC's head of drama, Alan Yentob, agreed they could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims."

This does seem to convey an impression of either bias or cowardice.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:00 PM (P)

"Totally infect ..."

Uhm, let's see. Wearing a veil, interviewing bin Laden and allowing a bible to be thrown in the trash. Totally infect, no I didn't see that phrase anywhere. Hmmm .... perhaps canker sore made that up ... could it be that HIS reporting of others' reporting is BIASED ??!!

RUE

Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:03 PM (P)

"'Nearly everyone ... agreed they (kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Bible and the Koran) could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.'
This does seem to convey an impression of either bias or cowardice."

What would be more offensive to a christian - throwing a bible in the dustbin or using a crucifix as a dildo? You have to pick your examples to make sure they are equivalent.

CITIZEN

Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:32 PM (P)

I don't think anyone doubts that the BBC is biased, it is however less biased than any American news source, and less biased than ITN or Channel Four news over here.

Even to the point where the BBC will admit it's own failings, where as their contemporaries would just say "we are always right, sometimes reality is incorrect".

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.

RUE

Thursday, October 26, 2006 7:38 PM (P)

As a US observer, I find the BBC int'l coverage to be focused on ex-colonies. So when I want news on Central and South America I tend to go elsewhere. Otherwise I think it has a much better world persepctive than US news.

KANEMAN

Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:25 PM (P)

"In a secret meeting with FOX executives they admited they were biased:
"Yes we hate everyone except the religious right, and we want them dead, what's wrong with that?"

Ah, nothing better than a little misdirection from a liberal to know there is truth to something. Jesus Citz, I thought better of you. Who knew you would stoop so low, you little dog. What a wiley coyote you are becoming, so sneaky and hard to get a bead on... wow! Say hello to Ruse while you are down there.......

GEEZER

Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:31 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"'Nearly everyone ... agreed they (kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Bible and the Koran) could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.'
This does seem to convey an impression of either bias or cowardice." - Geezer

What would be more offensive to a christian - throwing a bible in the dustbin or using a crucifix as a dildo? You have to pick your examples to make sure they are equivalent. - Rue

I have no doubt that there are plenty of Christians who would be as offended by someone throwing the Bible in the dustbin as Muslims would be if the Koran were being treated the same way. Is there then some secret ratio of offense which would let us know when it's OK to offend and when we have to fear that we are offending too much? Is it that the offended Muslims are considered more likely to cause trouble? Is that actually bias against Muslims?

BTW. "Crucifix as a dildo"? Now why did that example pop into your head first? Experience? Naughty Rue!

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KANEMAN

Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:39 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians."

"The BBC is believed to be taking a more critical look at itself because it fears if it does not, its regulation could be removed from its board of governors and handed over to the independent regulator Ofcom."

Ruse, these are not my words. I'm sorry to have brought it to your attention. Like you don't think big media is biased. Come on now, aaah.. sure you do. Trying to act all flabbergasted and "oh, they would never do such a thing"ish....Did you and Citz talk by phone and make a pact to act all "oh, its nothing" and evasive? Pretty gooooood, it's a cute little act.. you two are a couple of little snakes. I got by eye on you..make sure you behave.......

DANFAN

Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:07 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

"BTW. "Crucifix as a dildo"? Now why did that example pop into your head first? Experience? Naughty Rue!

Perhaps he saw "The Exorcist" at a tender age back in the 1970's (as did I). Never read the book... so I can't say whether that scene was in the novel.

That said, Rue seemed to be claiming (if I understood correctly) that a visual representation of someone using a crucifix as a dildo would provide an outrage to Christians that would be more closely equivalent to a Muslim watching a Koran being defaced.

The crucifix/dildo thing was done in theaters all over the country about 30 years ago. I do remember some outcry from the Christian community. But I don't remember any firebombings, beheadings, or even criminal arrests.

Edited to Add: I went back and reread Rue's original post. He didn't say that crucifix/dildo = koran/trash can. He indicated that crucifix/dildo > bible/trashcan and followed that with a comment (something)about choosing equivalent insults. So my statement that Rue means crucifix/dildo = koran/trashcan is my inference, not Rue's explicit claim.

RUE

Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:19 PM (P)

The problem is in this paragraph:

"The BBC is believed to be taking a more critical look at itself because it fears if it does not, its regulation could be removed from its board of governors and handed over to the independent regulator Ofcom."

The problem is the wording crafted to imply much but be actionable for little. With such careful wording, and such pathetic specifics, I'd be cautious about drawing any conclusions.

"Is believed" puts everything into the hypothetical. IS it taking a closer look at itself? IS that look more critical? DOES it fear loss of self-regulation? IS that why it may or may not be taking what might or might not be a more critical look at itself? And so on.

PS The crucifix thing was from a movie with echoes from a sci-fi book "Shikasta - the Broken One".

CITIZEN

Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:34 PM (P)

Quote:
Ah, nothing better than a little misdirection from a liberal to know there is truth to something. Jesus Citz, I thought better of you. Who knew you would stoop so low, you little dog. What a wiley coyote you are becoming, so sneaky and hard to get a bead on... wow! Say hello to Ruse while you are down there.......

I made a joke, pointing at the absurdity of your statements based on nothing more than an article in the Daily ~~Fascist~~ Mail. Come on Kaney-Boy, can't take a bit of funnin'?

What is your problem here anyway? That the BBC isn't perfect? Because they're not as biased as nearly if not all of their competitors and more besides, yet you let that slide. Why is that? Is it okay to be biased as long as you're preaching racial hatred and daemonising non-republicans? Is that why we can bring the BBC to task but FOX is sacrosanct despite being worse? Are biases only okay as long as they're your biases?

I add that I could tell you the BBC is biased, all news sources are. FOX is the most biased news source I've seen, but you give it a free pass. FOX puts out the view that the sun shines out of the republicans collective orifices, and the Democrats eat babies, the BBC pretty much takes any politicians to task regardless of political allegiance. So they're pretty unbiased as news sources go, but like with all news sources you need balance and you need to look at different perspectives. I'm not down playing it, you're blowing it out of proportion. You're acting like all of a sudden the BBC is the most biased news source on the planet, when really they're one of the least.

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.

KANEMAN

Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:06 PM (P)

"FOX is the most biased news source I've seen, but you give it a free pass"

Not true at all. No free pass from me.

CITIZEN

Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:10 PM (P)

So you accept it's the most biased news source? Then why such the slanted view of the BBC? Why make out the BBC to be the worst ever because they have some biases (that aren't as great as their competitors).

In fact I don't see much in the way of News bias for the BBC here at all, there's some for an entertainment program, but none as far as I can see for the news programming. So isn't it kind of dishonest to equate the two?

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.

GINOBIFFARONI

Friday, October 27, 2006 2:14 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Here's the best link I could find. Still seems that they are admitting to bias. In this, they are admitting that they're like every other news outlet in the world. I stll enjoy the BBC website, I just know I have to accept that they have a viewpoint they're supporting.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23371617-details/We+are+bia
sed%252C+admit+the+stars+of+BBC+News/article.do

"Keep the Shiny side up"

As does Fox news, any media source these days needs to be taken with a grain of salt...

or better yet, read many of them and form your own opinion. It would be rare to find two individuals with identical viewpoints on everything... the contrast makes life interesting.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, October 27, 2006 4:31 AM (P)

Saying "the media has a left slanted bias" is not saying anything at all, just like saying "the church has a right slanted bias" Sure, the counter argument "the media does not have a left slanted bias" is sillier.

But this was all dealt with in an earlier thread where we concluded that the cause of slants is where people put their effort

Media: Left
Education: Left
Church: Right
Business: Right

etc.

Conservatives tend to take up faith and business and other pursuits which fit their interests. Liberals take up teaching or reporting and things which fit their interests. Presto bias-o. It's not a big conspiracy, it's self-fulfillment.

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, October 27, 2006 5:28 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Saying "the media has a left slanted bias" is not saying anything at all, just like saying "the church has a right slanted bias" Sure, the counter argument "the media does not have a left slanted bias" is sillier.

But this was all dealt with in an earlier thread where we concluded that the cause of slants is where people put their effort

Media: Left
Education: Left
Church: Right
Business: Right

etc.

Conservatives tend to take up faith and business and other pursuits which fit their interests. Liberals take up teaching or reporting and things which fit their interests. Presto bias-o. It's not a big conspiracy, it's self-fulfillment.

This is how I would rewrite your statements to be more accurate...

Saying "the media has a left slanted bias" based solely on one study that looked at the political leanings of reporters is not saying anything at all, just like saying "the church has a right slanted bias" based only on looking at religious leaders who spend a lot of time talking on camera. Sure, the counter argument "the media does not have a left slanted bias" is sillier partly because it goes against a hallmark golden calf of modern day American conservatism and also because of comments by people who work for the BBC.

Hmmm. That works better for me

. And while I'll give you a pass on your reference to this getting settled in an earlier thread (which I find hard to believe since we've rarely ever settled anything on RWED

), I think your breakdown loses a lot. Just to give one example:
Business runs the media. So by your logic that's right in charge of left. And the bosses win out. When you throw into the mix that there are for profit educational institutions and churches that are both left and right running educational institutions it further muddies the waters.

I think one of the only generalizations you can make is that a majority of the most powerful and wealthy individuals and corporations support the Republicans because they know they get more welfare that way. Oh, and that a majority of African American voters support the Democratic Party because they know where all the racists ended up after the sixties. And that the media which isn't actively working for a permanent Republican majority (which is most of talk radio, Fox, the publications of the Reverend Moon, the Wall Street Journal and now Disney and ABC among others) is so scared of being labelled as "liberal" that they will bend over backwards to pass along conservative talking points.

American conservatives have this whole "victim" schtick down cold. How you equate that with controlling all branches of the federal government and bankrolling a huge infrastructure from think tanks on up to media outlets is beyond me. But maybe that's because I'm not a conservative. I just see people who have been in absolute power a little too long corrupted absolutely.

GEEZER

Friday, October 27, 2006 12:30 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
As does Fox news, any media source these days needs to be taken with a grain of salt...

or better yet, read many of them and form your own opinion. It would be rare to find two individuals with identical viewpoints on everything... the contrast makes life interesting.

I find the least bias in local TV newscasts and the local newsradio here, which basically quotes the AP news feed. They are pretty careful to separate editorial content from straight news.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

DREAMTROVE

Friday, October 27, 2006 1:36 PM (P)

Soup,

You've chosen the silly argument.

The US media supports G.W.Bush, who imho, is a commie, and that's the closest thing to conservative they've gotten outside the Rupert Murdoch empire, which is really the only major right-slanted. Sure there's CSM and a few finanical publications, some small press. But the MSM is a left slant, and it creeps through absolutely everything produced. Any random program is filled with liberal bias. Even the new Dr. Who has a fair amount of it, but fortunately it's willing to ask the tough questions. Some non-PC problems come up like "cybermen's rights." :)

Quote:
Business runs the media.

Not so much. The media *is* a business, and is largely funded by advertising, but the statement "the media is run by academia" is closer to the truth. If you look for example, Time/Warner, CBS, Viacom, are all run essentially out of Yale.

But Hollywood and Telewood are a vast network of guild-like societies unto themselves, with a very strong liberal bias. If you go through that population and do a poll you're going to find about 80% of them are liberals. I remember Emma Caufield said in an interview that working as a republican in this town was something like being the black guy at a klan rally - i don't think that was the exact analogy, but it was something pretty similar.

Not saying there's no muddy waters, but ultimately the rank and file are the ones creating the product, and they were driven their by their own proclivities.

I think one of the only generalizations you can make is that a majority of the most powerful and wealthy individuals and corporations support the Republicans because they know they get more welfare that way. Oh, and that a majority of African American voters support the Democratic Party because they know where all the racists ended up after the sixties. And that the media which isn't actively working for a permanent Republican majority (which is most of talk radio, Fox, the publications of the Reverend Moon, the Wall Street Journal and now Disney and ABC among others) is so scared of being labelled as "liberal" that they will bend over backwards to pass along conservative talking points.

Quote:
American conservatives have this whole "victim" schtick down cold.

And liberals don't? I mean really, be fair. The left does control hollywood and most of the media and just about all of academia, basically the major portion of all the information that everyone hears, and yet to read their political intra-liberal communications it's all "we're struggling to get the word out" sorry, but give me a break.

The problem, imho, with your position, is that you're calculating everything in dollar terms. This isn't how the world works. Those thinktanks didn't come into existance because someone had a bunch of dollars and said "hey, lets create a think tank." They came into being because a bunch of academics said "let become a think tank" and then they went around and cut deals with people until they found someone to fund them.

Quote:
I just see people who have been in absolute power a little too long corrupted absolutely.

Sure, don't you think I see that too? But it's not "the right." There's some cabal in power which has right wingers and lefties in it. But I really don't think you can look back at eight years of clinton and four years of carter against eight years of reagan and four years of bush sr. and see an imbalance. And sure, we have eight years of bush, and soon we'll have eight years of obama/hillary. Your side has been in power half the time, more than half from a congressional perspective.

Quote:
I think one of the only generalizations you can make is that a majority of the most powerful and wealthy individuals and corporations support the Republicans because they know they get more welfare that way.

I don't even think this is factually accurate. Democratic presidents give away tons of cash to their friends. Back in the days when republicans were fiscally responsible, democrats were getting fat. That's what really

ERIC

Friday, October 27, 2006 3:51 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I see the same media, and think that they are terrified, even in the right press, of violating the cannon of liberal and "PC" that even the right is left. Sure, there are more conservatives now than there were, but it's still a liberal message machine.

Not trying to cross-contaminate from the Michael J. Fox thread, but

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610260008

Echoing Limbaugh, [ABC News political director Mark] Halperin greeted [CNN Headline News' Glenn] Beck to discuss Michael J. Fox by stating: "Glenn, first of all, megadittos. And I just need you to know, I'm not doing this segment on my meds, so watch out." "Megadittos" is a term used by Limbaugh's callers and fans to express strong support for Limbaugh and agreement with his views.
(+ vid of same)

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, October 27, 2006 4:41 PM (P)

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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...

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

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

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.

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.

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? 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?

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? 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?
..............................

Oh, and what had Bush done that you consider liberal? You

CITIZEN

Friday, October 27, 2006 5:10 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Oh, and what had Bush done that you consider liberal? You don't like him so you'd rather put him in the political spectrum you like to hate, but other than making government bigger(which has nothing to do with liberal agenda but may be a liberal side-effect), what else can you possibly site that qualifies him?

Come on, it's obvious.

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

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.

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, October 27, 2006 7:56 PM (P)

dreamtrove,

There are times when I have a hard time taking you seriously. This is one of those times. The main reason is because you make these blanket statements that have absolutely no basis in reality. Now I realize that you're a conservative. And that one of the hallmarks of modern American movement conservatism is that conservatives are not wrong, therefore anyone who makes a statement they disagree with must not be conservative. 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. All of a sudden, they're now liberals. When conservative policies fail, as they have throughout this Presidency, conservatives never admit that the policy itself (and the underlying theory behind it) may have been in error. It's always the fault of those who implemented the policy because they weren't conservative enough. Modern American conservatism has been remarkably consistent over the past many years concerning one bedrock belief: what is good for the corporation is good for the country.

With that in mind, let's look at one of your more outrageous claims:

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The problem, imho, with your position, is that you're calculating everything in dollar terms. This isn't how the world works. Those thinktanks didn't come into existance because someone had a bunch of dollars and said "hey, lets create a think tank." They came into being because a bunch of academics said "let become a think tank" and then they went around and cut deals with people until they found someone to fund them.

This couldn't be further from the truth. If you look at the top twenty think tanks in the country, they are all advocates for conservative policies. And most of them got their start after the Vietnam war. 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.

The call to action was put out. And the business community answered. The Heritage Foundation, probably the most important and influential think tank in the country, started in 1973 with money from Joseph Coors. Seven years later they plunked a book down on Reagan's desk telling him what they wanted him to do. He implemented almost three-quarters of their recommendations early on in his Presidency. More than fifty conservative think tanks were started after the Lewis Powell memo funded by prominent businesses and foundations (Richard Scaife and the Olin Foundation are just two that come immediately to mind).

None of this is a secret. There's no conspiracy to hide how these think tanks got started. And why they were started. And who the driving players were in their formation and where the money came from. None of this is in doubt. It's been well documented. So for you to say that it was all a case of academics getting together and running around looking for money is just plain wrong.

Maybe the best argument I can think of is to ask you to remember your time in college. 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. It just doesn't happen. There are however, scores of examples of businesses starting from scratch and having a profound impact in seven years. Which is more likely in your opinion, that a group of wealthy businesses and conservative idealogues created organizations with the sole purpose of influencing policy and shaping thought and that these organizations have become tremendously influential in just a few decades (something supported by all the evidence) or that a g

GEEZER

Friday, October 27, 2006 11:48 PM (P)

So, what happened to "is the BBC biased?"

Based on the responses so far, we have these options.

1. Yes

2. I don't trust the source of the allegations, so I won't believe them.

3. Maybe, but that's all right 'cause other media is more biased.

4. Let's change the subject to Republican vs. Democratic levels of media influence. It has nothing to do with the BBC, but then we don't have to consider the question of BBC bias anymore.

Haven't seen anyone state the opinion that they are entirely free of bias.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, October 27, 2006 11:54 PM (P)

Geezer,

Put me down for:

5. All of the above

FELLOWTRAVELER

Saturday, October 28, 2006 12:00 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Is it that the offended Muslims are considered more likely to cause trouble?

My guess, that's where the smart money is. And everyone is biased. Including the BBC.

CITIZEN

Saturday, October 28, 2006 9:26 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
1. Yes

Of course they are. Everyone is. They're still just about the best single source out there.

A more pertinent question (and one you continue to ignore I might add) is why you give other sources (NBC, ABC, FOX et al) a free pass despite being worse and despite not caring whether they are biased or not (which by virtue of saying nothing on them and making out this to be such a big deal is exactly what you are doing).

Remember that this is the BBC expressing concerns about the BBC about their PROGRAMMING not their news service.

Why are you implying that BBC News is biased? Why are you giving free passes to the biases you agree with?

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.

GEEZER

Saturday, October 28, 2006 2:41 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
1. Yes
Of course they are. Everyone is. They're still just about the best single source out there.

A more pertinent question (and one you continue to ignore I might add) is why you give other sources (NBC, ABC, FOX et al) a free pass despite being worse and despite not caring whether they are biased or not (which by virtue of saying nothing on them and making out this to be such a big deal is exactly what you are doing).

From my first post above (emphasis added, so you don't miss it this time)

"Still seems that they are admitting to bias. In this, they are admitting that they're like every other news outlet in the world. I stll enjoy the BBC website, I just know I have to accept that they have a viewpoint they're supporting."

I don't say anything about Fox, ABC, NBC, etc. Because I don't watch their news. I do listen to BBC World News and frequent their website, so I have more interest in them.

"Of course they are. Everyone is." Interesting rationale. So if, say, the US were torturing a few prisoners(But not to death or permanent physical injury, mostly), and many other countries routinely tortured and killed many prisoners, it would be OK for the US to continue it's lesser torture program?

Maybe, as you so often do for the US, the BBC should be held to a higher standard, since it is one of the oldest and most respected news organizations in the world. Guess it just depends on whose ox is gored.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FELLOWTRAVELER

Saturday, October 28, 2006 2:45 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

A more pertinent question (and one you continue to ignore I might add) is why you give other sources (NBC, ABC, FOX et al) a free pass despite being worse and despite not caring whether they are biased or not (which by virtue of saying nothing on them and making out this to be such a big deal is exactly what you are doing).

Could it be that, for the most part, American broadcasters are biased towards money and that is acceptable, even encouraged, over here.

Where as the BBC is much like PBS, right? Some kinda' hybrid, semi-public, semi-state owned corporation?

CITIZEN

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:16 PM (P)

You obviously missed it first time round so I'll restate it:

Nothing here is talking about the BBC's news coverage. That is this bias is about the BBC television programming, with specifically room 101 as a comedy show, not a news program, that's the bias they're talking about. Nothing to do with their journalism, so why, despite me pointing it out twice before and a third time here do you continue to say otherwise?

Quote:
"Of course they are. Everyone is." Interesting rationale. So if, say, the US were torturing a few prisoners(But not to death or permanent physical injury, mostly), and many other countries routinely tortured and killed many prisoners, it would be OK for the US to continue it's lesser torture program?

Interesting, though psychotic, rationale. Please tell me that you don't equate having a point of view with torturing another human being? I believe I would be giving this statement more credence than it deserves to actually answer it. Please retry this with something a little less ridiculous.

Quote:
Maybe, as you so often do for the US, the BBC should be held to a higher standard, since it is one of the oldest and most respected news organizations in the world.

Back to equating having a point of view with torture. Everyone has a point of view, most people don't torture, these statements seem to insinuate that you think everyone does torture, which would imply that torture is an everyday activity for you. So is torture an everyday activity for you or was yours a rather poorly thought out analogy?

But before we let you get away with any more ridiculous silliness lets just restate something: I do hold the BBC to a higher standard. Their news reporting is still uncoloured by political and economic pressures, unlike their contemporaries. They still report what is happening, rather than reporting what they want us to think about what is happening, unlike nearly all their contemporaries.

Quote:
Guess it just depends on whose ox is gored.

Careful, I'm not the one twisting evidence into something it isn't, i.e. I'm not the one equating the content of a comedy program with the content of a news service.

Really, although you are attempting to discredit me with an under the table accusation of anti-Americanism you're apparent position of "If it's okay for the BBC to be Human rather than Super-Human then it's okay for the US to torture people" is not only ridiculous but also speaks more about you than I.

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.

KANEMAN

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:50 PM (P)

"you are attempting to discredit me with an under the table accusation of anti-Americanism "

HEEhee..You, anti-American.....never.

CITIZEN

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:56 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Could it be that, for the most part, American broadcasters are biased towards money and that is acceptable, even encouraged, over here.

Where as the BBC is much like PBS, right? Some kinda' hybrid, semi-public, semi-state owned corporation?

The BBC is a Public sponsored corporation. It is paid for by the TV licence.

The BBC does make profits from sale of footage, programs, DVD etc., but I believe the proceeds from this are, by law, prevented from being used to pay for news services or programming, at least within British Territories. I assume things like BBC America and possibly the world service could be funded by advertising revenue and/or merchandise sales, but to be honest I really don't know.

The idea is that for vital media such as news those that hold the purse strings can have no say in what the BBC News service reports. It's not a bad idea really, I can't see a corporate owned news service reporting a story that questions the parent company and possibly effects their profits, but since BBC news income is protected by law they are free to question even those that hold the purse strings.

I think this was proved involving a motoring program top gear sometime ago. They had some rather unkind statements to the effect of "this new Peugeot is crap" which Peugeot weren't happy with. They demanded that the segment be removed or they'd stop advertising with the BBC, the BBC said "Okay, we don't run adverts".

Of course Top Gear isn't news per se, but the basic idea holds up I think.

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.

GEEZER

Saturday, October 28, 2006 3:57 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You obviously missed it first time round so I'll restate it:

Nothing here is talking about the BBC's news coverage. That is this bias is about the BBC television programming, with specifically room 101 as a comedy show, not a news program, that's the bias they're talking about. Nothing to do with their journalism, so why, despite me pointing it out twice before and a third time here do you continue to say otherwise?

From (emphasis added)

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23371617-details/We+are+bia
sed%252C+admit+the+stars+of+BBC+News/article.do

Quote:
Political pundit(edit:And BBC journalist) Andrew Marr said: 'The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.'

Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.

Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a 'very senior news executive', about the BBC's pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: 'The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.'

Head of news Helen Boaden disclosed that a Radio 4 programme which blamed black youths at a young offenders', institution for bullying white inmates faced the axe until she stepped in.

Perhaps you should actually read the article I linked prior to spouting off about it. There is plenty of discussion, in the article, about the news operation.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Please tell me that you don't equate having a point of view with torturing another human being?

No, and you know it. You're just trying to change the subject. And it's interesting how bias in broadcasting has drifted into the benign "having a point of view." So I guess Fox isn't that bad, since they just have a point of view?

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Their news reporting is still uncoloured by political and economic pressures, unlike their contemporaries.

Not according to their newspeople, as noted above.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Careful, I'm not the one twisting evidence into something it isn't, i.e. I'm not the one equating the content of a comedy program with the content of a news service.

Neither am I. I'm the one actually reading the statements by newspeople about bias in the news organization and managing to avoid going off half-cocked.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Saturday, October 28, 2006 4:23 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
No, and you know it. You're just trying to change the subject. And it's interesting how bias in broadcasting has drifted into the benign "having a point of view." So I guess Fox isn't that bad, since they just have a point of view?

Actually dear you're the one who pulled torture into the mix, not me. You changed the subject I replied.

But we're still on the "having a bias is the same as torture" nonsense dressed up convieniently as apparently my problem for not accepting that.

Ok, I suppose it's okay for me to torture you, since it's the same thing as having a bias, how's a week next tuesday for you? What do you want first the stress position or the Iron Maiden?

And as I already said and you continue to ignore the BBC of course has bias, everyone has bias, point of view is part of that. It's unreasonable to expect different, or down right dishonest.

Quote:
I'm the one actually reading the statements by newspeople about bias in the news organization and managing to avoid going off half-cocked.

You're the one being intentionally baiting and intentionally attempting to paint the BBC as the most bias source, for reasons known only to yourself.

Yeah the BBC is biased, I said that from the off, all news sources are and no source can not be, that's the why you should look at different sources, preferably higher quality ones, which doesn't include FOX news, and does include the BBC and Reuters as two examples.

Also I was replying to you, not the artical, and the only thing you've had to say on the subject so far was:

Quote:
"In one of a series of discussions, executives were asked to rule on how they would react if the controversial comedian Sacha Baron Cohen ) known for his offensive characters Ali G and Borat - was a guest on the programme Room 101.

On the show, celebrities are invited to throw their pet hates into a dustbin and it was imagined that Baron Cohen chose some kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Bible and the Koran.

Nearly everyone at the summit, including the show's actual producer and the BBC's head of drama, Alan Yentob, agreed they could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims."

This does seem to convey an impression of either bias or cowardice.

equating a comedy show to be the same as a news service.

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.

GEEZER

Saturday, October 28, 2006 5:35 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Actually dear you're the one who pulled torture into the mix, not me. You changed the subject I replied.

No. Just applying reducto ad absurdum to your contention that "if everyone does it, it must be all right."

Quote:
You're the one being intentionally baiting and intentionally attempting to paint the BBC as the most bias source, for reasons known only to yourself.

If you can provide any quote that indicates that I am "...intentionally attempting to paint the BBC as the most bias source." please do so. I am saying that they are biased, you apparently agree (see below). I respect them as a news source, so I'm more disappointed than I would be if,say, the Washington Times admitted they might show bias.

Quote:
Yeah the BBC is biased, I said that from the off, all news sources are and no source can not be, that's the why you should look at different sources, preferably higher quality ones, which doesn't include FOX news, and does include the BBC and Reuters as two examples.

Also I was replying to you, not the artical

If you're not going to take the time to read the background information on which the entire thread was based, maybe you shouldn't play.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Saturday, October 28, 2006 5:40 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
No. Just applying reducto ad absurdum to your contention that "if everyone does it, it must be all right."

I never said it was all right, I said the continuing posturing by certain people here that makes out that the BBC is somehow the worst culprit, and that it is entirely possible for anyone to not be at all biased is crap.

So geezer you say torture and bias are equivelent, which you use as proof that what I say false, it's still a logical fallacy.

If you can't stop lying and intentionally trying to wind people up with your petty wise cracks maybe you shouldn't play.

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.

FELLOWTRAVELER

Saturday, October 28, 2006 6:53 PM (P)

So, maybe comparing the BBC (news) to NBC, ABC, FOX, etc, isn't really fair. They're not playing on the same field. The news divisions of US broadcasters have been somewhat reduced to line items on a P&L. One could argue that objectivity is now a close second to ad. sales and profitability. And info-tainment is born.

Perhaps a more apt comparison would be the BBC and PBS (or NPR) and interestingly, both often face the same accusations of a leftist slant.

In the case of our public broadcasters, I can begrudgingly admit that the accusations are well founded, though conservative contempt for everything thats purpose isn't profit might exacerbate their ire.

But, so what? What the Hell is wrong with a little (obvious) bias? Even if all the accusations are correct, it's not like the BBC (or PBS) is advocating genocide, or child molestation, or suicide bombings. Aren't tolerance and multi-culturalism good things?

As to the most most damning accusations to us Americans, those of anti-Americanism and treating Islam with more respect than Christianity, our broadcasters rountinely behave similarly.

Just a few short years ago, was there not a palpable anti-French/anti-German atmoshpere all over American television? Is not being called French the equivalent to being called a pussy? How many times were those Danish Mohammed cartoons shown on TV? But, material that Christians find offensive is shown with some regularity, right?

I think we've got a little pot & kettle thing going here...

CITIZEN

Saturday, October 28, 2006 7:29 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
I think we've got a little pot & kettle thing going here...

I think that is sentiment similar to what I was trying to say.

Though the anti-American thing I really don't get. Whether this is feeling held by those in the BBC I certainly have never seen it in the news programming.

But I'm still not seeing any real bias in the news programming. There's some mention of News readers possibly being allowed to where veils but not Christian crosses, which depending on situation could be a bias (I refer to the recent thing with BA being accused of bias because they didn't give preferential treatment to a Christian wishing to wear her Jewellery), is hardly a bias in news reporting. The only real biases in news reporting raised here seem to be anti-Americanism and the threat to possibly maybe remove a non-news current events program from BBC Radio 4. The first I'm not sure of it's reality and the second is not actual news and it wasn't pulled anyway. So the obvious incredible bias being pointed to here seems so far to have had zero effect on the end news product.

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.

GEEZER

Saturday, October 28, 2006 7:56 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
No. Just applying reducto ad absurdum to your contention that "if everyone does it, it must be all right."
I never said it was all right...

In answer to my question, "Is the BBC Biased"

Citizen:"Of course they are. Everyone is."

Sure seems to excuse them of bias, since "everyone is".

Quote:
I said the continuing posturing by certain people here that makes out that the BBC is somehow the worst culprit...

And I once again ask you to provide one quote in this thread indicating that BBC is "the worst culprit".

Quote:
So geezer you say torture and bias are equivelent, which you use as proof that what I say false, it's still a logical fallacy.

...or a quote stating I think torture and bias are equivalent.

Quote:
If you can't stop lying and intentionally trying to wind people up with your petty wise cracks maybe you shouldn't play.

Hmm, you're the one claiming I state, "...that the BBC is somehow the worst culprit." and that "... torture and bias are equivelent." Both demonstrably lies to anyone who takes the time to read this entire thread.

Sorry, Citizen, you're just making smoke and firing chaff to try and make a clean getaway.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Sunday, October 29, 2006 1:40 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
No. Just applying reducto ad absurdum to your contention that "if everyone does it, it must be all right."
I never said it was all right...

In answer to my question, "Is the BBC Biased"

Citizen:"Of course they are. Everyone is."

Sure seems to excuse them of bias, since "everyone is".

Quote:
I said the continuing posturing by certain people here that makes out that the BBC is somehow the worst culprit...

And I once again ask you to provide one quote in this thread indicating that BBC is "the worst culprit".

Quote:
So geezer you say torture and bias are equivelent, which you use as proof that what I say false, it's still a logical fallacy.

...or a quote stating I think torture and bias are equivalent.

Quote:
If you can't stop lying and intentionally trying to wind people up with your petty wise cracks maybe you shouldn't play.

Hmm, you're the one claiming I state, "...that the BBC is somehow the worst culprit." and that "... torture and bias are equivelent." Both demonstrably lies to anyone who takes the time to read this entire thread.

Sorry, Citizen, you're just making smoke and firing chaff to try and make a clean getaway.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Is this where I scream at you or something? Just tell me when you want me to embaress myself by losing my temper at your baiting, ok?

Or.

Maybe we can start again, how's that. So What's this mean to you? We agree that the BBC has bias, lets go from there.

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.

GEEZER

Sunday, October 29, 2006 2:04 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Maybe we can start again, how's that. So What's this mean to you? We agree that the BBC has bias, lets go from there.

That's pretty much all that I said, that the BBC seems to have admitted that they have certain biases. If the London Calling article I linked to is to be believed, (I have no reason to doubt it), Some of their senior news staff believe this has an impact on their news coverage, at least of the US. They also seem to be more concerned about offending Muslims than Christians, at least on some of their non-news shows. I'm disappointed, because I have always considered BBC News a pretty authoritative source, and wish they didn't have any bias to be concerned about.

I doubt (and never said) that they have any more bias than any other news organization. I recognise that they have less than many. This does not absolve them from censure for having bias.

Now, if you would kindly ask your attack dog to remove his jaws from my ankle

, we could have a civilized discussion about media outlets and standards for news reporting. Perhaps tomorrow, as it approaches bedtime for aged Geezers.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, October 29, 2006 2:29 AM (P)

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 dispara

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, October 29, 2006 2:41 AM (P)

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.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, October 29, 2006 3:17 AM (P)

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

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, October 29, 2006 3:21 AM (P)

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.

RIGHTEOUS9

Sunday, October 29, 2006 7:25 AM (P)

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?

SOUPCATCHER

Sunday, October 29, 2006 8:26 AM (P)

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

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 4:17 AM (P)

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.

[quo

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 4:58 AM (P)

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 th

RIGHTEOUS9

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 5:44 AM (P)

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?

RIGHTEOUS9

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 5:44 AM (P)

double

CITIZEN

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 4:10 PM (P)

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.

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 5:34 AM (P)

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

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 6:01 AM (P)

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 universit

CITIZEN

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 11:26 AM (P)

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

FELLOWTRAVELER

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 2:52 PM (P)

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.

RUE

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 4:01 PM (P)

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'

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 10:09 PM (P)

CItizen

grow up

Rue

thanks, nice post on the fried press.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, November 1, 2006 10:12 PM (P)

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.

CENTURY22

Saturday, November 4, 2006 5:17 AM (P)

A TV network biased?
Wow, who would have thought that possible?

They never lie down.