Liberal Media Greater threat than terrorism

[KitemanSA]

Allow voters to "Just Say No"!!

PS: This is called "full option voting".

My option can be done with out changing anything except one's mind.

But as you point out tangentially above, the mind is perhaps the hardest substance known to man. It seems impervious to change.

[Josh Cryer]

Look at the Media spin on the Holocaust Museum shooter.

They say he's a Racist, Right wing, Religious, gun totin vetran, that represents the people Janet Napolitano warned everyone about.

The facts are otherwise.

Registered Democrat
artist
Journalism Major
Christian hater
Jew Hater
FOX News’ O'Reilly hater
Weekly Standard hater
Bush hater
Neo-con hater
9-11 was an inside job nut

Stated that “SOCIALISM, represents the future of the West”
Stated that the Apostle Paul destroyed Rome by undermining its pagan virility.
Hated corporations

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/ ... brunn.html


And

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/a-right-wi ... ate-crime/


David

Attempts to paint this guys views black and white fail miserably.

He was a fascist. In fact, he condemns Marxism in the very quotes linked (this is the same association that people made with Hitler, by claiming he was a "socialist").

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

The ties to Chomsky are spurious at best.

This is just Orwellian doublespeak to try to paint this guys views as leftist when they most certainly are not to any reasonable leftist.

[MSimon]

Allow voters to "Just Say No"!!

PS: This is called "full option voting".

My option can be done with out changing anything except one's mind.

But as you point out tangentially above, the mind is perhaps the hardest substance known to man. It seems impervious to change.

In that case one can only teach the next generation and hope.

Simon

[MSimon]

Of course every one knows Hitler wasn't the leader of the National Socialist Party. That is just something made up by right wingers and guys like Hayek who wrote about it in 1944 in his book "The Road To Serfdom".

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/022632 ... 0226320553

You know ideas like "Hitler was a socialist" get started some where and pretty soon you have people believing it with no evidence what so ever. Eventually the truth will come out and the lying will cease. Or at least diminish in volume.

[Josh Cryer]

The mass delusion continues apparently.

[MSimon]

The mass delusion continues apparently.

Yeah. That Hayek was just making stuff up. The gall of him putting the Soviets and the Nazis in the same economic camp. It defies logic! It defies reason! It defies political correctness!!!!!11ty!!!!!!!!

[jgarry]

Several years ago I was enjoying a days skiing at Vail in Colorado, and cursing the fact that a beautiful large area was still undeveloped. To my horror I discovered that a leftist organization had sabotaged attempts to build there. It was a bit of a wake up call. After all, we're simply skiing out there, not building a strip mine.
Brain dead idealism on either end of the political spectrum leading to violence is counter-productive. Of course when you get to the point where you're battling a Stalin or a Hitler that's another story. But we're not there yet.

[ravingdave]

I dunno Dave about the Fatherless bastard problem. Of course conservatives are against it while being the strongest proponents of a policy that promotes it and which policy looks very much like covert racism.

http://www.issues.org/13.2/courtw.htm

BTW George Schultz and Milton Friedman (RIP) have been trying to teach conservatives about this stuff for decades. But conservatives are a hard headed, hard hearted lot and seem to be incapable (in general) of seeing the unintended consequences of their policies.

Liberals think economics only applies in this one market and conservatives believe this is the one market where economics do not apply. How odd.

Ha ha ha... we're back on the "Drug War". All roads lead to Rome Hmm?


The fatherless bastards I was referring to were those whose creation was made possible by Government Welfare Programs and the Great Society.

In most of human history, a girl who got pregnant without a marriage commitment was in serious trouble. Who would take care of her if her Baby's Daddy didn't provide? It USED to be the families, and if they weren't available it was the churches or charities. If they weren't available the woman survived in any way she could, but needless to say the situation was DIRE. Many didn't survive, nor did their children.

These poor girls were noticed by other girls in the community and served the purpose of a negative example. What girl would want to trade her life for one of these "Unfortunate Girls?" The tragedy strengthened the resolution of other girls not to allow themselves to fall into a similar situation.

Now along comes the Government to rescue these poor girls by setting them up in their own apartment and giving them food and a check. Suddenly the equation is transformed. No longer does uncommitted sex have so many serious drawbacks. You get pregnant, you get to move out of your families house into an apartment of your own, you get fed, you can sleep as late as you want, you can have sex anytime you want, you can do pretty much whatever you want.

Except for not having a husband, it is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle for many young girls who are tired of Mom and Dad telling them what to do.

Of course their children grow up as bastards without any discipline and the age old human instincts take over and they become trouble makers seeking to establish themselves as the Alpha Males of their community, or at least vying for status.

Of course in the process of establishing dominance, sometimes people get hurt.


Thank you Great Society for creating all these thugs and murderers who would not have otherwise been created but for your interference with normal human evolution.



David

[ravingdave]

From a UK perspective -

Media -

They media give people what they want. They are motivated by money, and selling copy. (and in any democracy much the same could be said for politicians).

Greater threat than terrorism?

That is an easy one. the only clear threat greater than terrorism is the fear of terrorism, and all the misguided, terrorism-promoting, behaviour that it engenders.

Democracy (of the necessarily imperfect form found in the world today) has many virtues but one vice is the inevitable knee-jerk reaction to emotive threats.

In the prelude to the second world war the UK realised better than anyone else that appeasement did not work with Hitler. But stateless terrorism is quite a different matter from a direct military threat. All it needs is a few people whose life is so miserable that suicide in a glorious cause seems attractive. It can only be reduced by convincing the bulk of the population (in whatever country harbours them) that the terrorists are wrong. Military posturing tends to do the opposite.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the US had a great chance to reduce terror - it squandered this. To be fair - it would need a leader of bgreat courage to do otherwise.

I have noticed the British Press is a lot more aggressive than is the American Press. I don't know if this makes them fair or not, but I notice that I often have to read stories from the foreign press to find out thing here in the USA that the American press simply refuse to report about.

Here in the USA the National Press is basically headquartered in New York , (for all the News Agencies) and Los Angeles (for most of the entertainment agencies)


To put it simply, the mindset difference between these two regions and the heartland of the country is roughly the same as allowing the Palestinians to report on Israel. The reports will always be biased, anything that doesn't fit the propaganda they like is left out or covered up, or criticized incessantly. Their allies will seldom be looked at for corruption, but if it is accidentally discovered, the press will do everything it can to omit the fact that the corrupt individual was an ally to their ideology. Their enemies will receive incessant, sustained attack and ridicule for the slightest error, on both the "News" program, and the "Entertainment" programs.


Fox News is the only News Network in the nation that even attempts to balance the counterweight of the Left wing News/Propaganda outlets. For this reason, it is now the Largest News network in the nation, often having a viewership as large as any two of the others.

Rupert Murdoch is himself most probably a Liberal, but he knows that it is a good money making idea to cater to the 1/2 of the American people that are not Liberal.



David

[jgarry]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth ... c-politics

This story doesn't seem to have gotten much copy. Yes it's in the WaPo, but safely tucked well away from the front page where people might actually read it. And Mr. Kirk seems to have gotten no press at all from that notorious liberal rag, the Chicago Trbune, nor from the Sun Times. Interesting to me. The media is corporate, and represents its interest as a corporate entity.

[ravingdave]

Look at the Media spin on the Holocaust Museum shooter.

They say he's a Racist, Right wing, Religious, gun totin vetran, that represents the people Janet Napolitano warned everyone about.

The facts are otherwise.

Registered Democrat
artist
Journalism Major
Christian hater
Jew Hater
FOX News’ O'Reilly hater
Weekly Standard hater
Bush hater
Neo-con hater
9-11 was an inside job nut

Stated that “SOCIALISM, represents the future of the West”
Stated that the Apostle Paul destroyed Rome by undermining its pagan virility.
Hated corporations

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/ ... brunn.html


And

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/a-right-wi ... ate-crime/


David

Attempts to paint this guys views black and white fail miserably.

He was a fascist. In fact, he condemns Marxism in the very quotes linked (this is the same association that people made with Hitler, by claiming he was a "socialist").

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

The ties to Chomsky are spurious at best.

This is just Orwellian doublespeak to try to paint this guys views as leftist when they most certainly are not to any reasonable leftist.

I followed your link. You are referencing a Nut Job. He has left out a whole lot of information that doesn't fit his narrative, and made up a bunch of stuff that isn't even true.

This line should have clued you in to the idea the man is a Nut.

In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people -- after all, wasn't the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves "socialist," but none have actually tried socialism. To understand why, we should revisit a few basic political terms.

He then attempts to defang the term NAZI, by saying it was a misnomer, But NO WHERE IN HIS ESSAY DOES HE MENTION THAT THE ACTUAL NAME OF THE NAZI PARTY WAS Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.

Meaning of course. National Socialist German Workers Party.

Also, according to "Leftism Revisited" (by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn)

The economic order under the National Socialists was thoroughly socialistic. And this although German manufacturers and other entrepreneurs continued in their positions. ( The same anomaly occurred in Mao's China where the "patriotic capitalists" retained jobs for which they had both the experience and the qualifications. ) German entrepreneurs became mere stewards in a planned economy; they worked for a totalitarian state that admitted neither genuine private property nor individual decisions. In explanation, Ludwig Von Mises pointed out that, in the end, the entrepreneurs preferred being reduced to the status of shop managers by the National Socialists to being "Liquidated" by the Communists in the Russian manner. Conditions being what they then were in Germany, no third way was open to them.

Another thing I found interesting in this same book is this.

Not by accident was the Nazi flag the RED banner. In early 1933 many Nazi flags were only adapted communist and socialist flags---the center cut out and replaced by a white cloth or covered by a sewn-on "Mirror"(when it rained, the red shone through). The socialist ties extended to the Nazi concentration camps, where the Communists, who were very well organized, were able to murder their rightist opponents under the very noses of the aloof jailers. Nazi-Soviet cooperation was in fact planned at an early date, as witness the well-documented Reventlow-Radek negotiations. This joint RED-BROWN hatred was directed mainly against Poland, the bete noire
of leftists all over the world. In this respect Stalin, Hitler, Lloyd George, and the American Left formed an unholy alliance.

I would love to go on quoting passages that establishes Hitler and Mussolini as being Leftists, but I think it's too much to ask that people read all this stuff. Oh what the heck. One more.

The founder of this century's fascism was Benito Mussolini, the elder of two sons of an Italian socialist blacksmith; he was called Benito (and not, in the Italian way, Benedetto) after Benito Jua`rez, the Mexican Indian who, supported by the United States, defeated and then executed Emperor Maximilian Ferdinand Joseph, brother of Franz Joseph. The younger Mussolini was baptized Arnaldo after the medieval revolutionary Arnaldo di Brecia.
Young Benito grew up a fanatical socialist like his father and started out to become a teacher, like his mother. Later he went to Switzerland to take literature courses at the Universities of Lausanne and Geneva while earning his livelihood as a mason. He had difficulties with the police, was temporarily jailed, and later went to Trent, then in Austria, where he worked as a journalist for two Italian-language newspapers with nationalistic and socialistic tendencies. ( The future duce del fascismo also used his stay to study German quite thoroughly.) But he became convinced that the local population, though ethnically Italian in its vast majority, preferred Austrian to Italian rule. Mussolini also came to consider the Austrian administration superior to that of his own country.

Socialist ? Teacher ? University ? Literature ? Difficulty with the Police? Journalist ?

Yup, sounds like a right winger to me.


Weren't Mussolini and Hitler good budies ?


Hmmm....


David

[ravingdave]

Several years ago I was enjoying a days skiing at Vail in Colorado, and cursing the fact that a beautiful large area was still undeveloped. To my horror I discovered that a leftist organization had sabotaged attempts to build there. It was a bit of a wake up call. After all, we're simply skiing out there, not building a strip mine.
Brain dead idealism on either end of the political spectrum leading to violence is counter-productive. Of course when you get to the point where you're battling a Stalin or a Hitler that's another story. But we're not there yet.

Well we're not "battling" him yet.




David

[ravingdave]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth ... c-politics

This story doesn't seem to have gotten much copy. Yes it's in the WaPo, but safely tucked well away from the front page where people might actually read it. And Mr. Kirk seems to have gotten no press at all from that notorious liberal rag, the Chicago Trbune, nor from the Sun Times. Interesting to me. The media is corporate, and represents its interest as a corporate entity.

It's getting more copy than the story of Ted Kennedy flying to Russia to negotiate with Gorbachev when Reagan became President. There have been several other examples of Liberals engaging in Diplomatic affairs which were completely against the law, and are supposed to be the sole Purview of the Presidency. Of course they all fly below the Media Radar.

In any case, the man is stating the Obvious. No one should believe the numbers coming from the Congress or the White House. They have established that they are completely clueless or lying about every number that they put forth. Unemployment ? Only 8% without the stimulus package ! (says the White House.) Reality: 9.4 % WITH the stimulus package! (would be 15% if they used the same method for calculating unemployment which they used in 1932)

In any case, Kirk isn't calling his Country a liar, he is calling the Democrats who managed to Propagandize their way into power (with the Ought to be illegal connivance of the Media) Liars and/or fools, and in that degree he is telling the truth.



David

[MSimon]

Thank you Great Society for creating all these thugs and murderers who would not have otherwise been created but for your interference with normal human evolution.

Eventually experience sorts things out. It sorted me out.

[djolds1]

Weren't Mussolini and Hitler good budies ?

Actually, Vladimir Lenin and Mussolini were good buddies. Lenin quite regretted losing Mussolini when Il Duce decided to use a different myth and go nationalist instead of dogmatic internationalist.