Liberal Media Greater threat than terrorism

nuclearnoob · Post by **nuclearnoob** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:37 am

Your right that the socialists have won.

Socialism, of a kind, was the emerging economic model during Hitler's time and just about every country has by now adopted it in some fashion.

If there is a spectrum of socialism we definitely fall along it and always have. This notion of the United States turning into a socialist society is nonsense. We have been socialist for the last 60 years at least. If there's a more promising and viable alternative I'm all for it but there's a burden of proof that must be met.

ravingdave · Post by **ravingdave** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 2:31 pm

nuclearnoob wrote:Who cares whether a bunch of pseudo-liberals run the media or not? Would we be better off if it were run by pseudo-conservatives? Just about any news or opinion you get from television will rot your brain, whether its Chris Mathews, Wolf Blitzer or Chris Wallace.

Its not about liberal or conservative. That should be abundantly clear by now. Its about keeping the corporate cash machines ringing and whatever will do that, whether it be the madly successful "liberal" comedy show, Family Guy, or the just plain mad and successful Glenn Beck, they both make tons of money for Rupert Murdoch. Voices of the intellectual left are almost never on television because they are critical of corporations and corporate motives, while those on the far right seem to just love the huge corporate media monopolies that they work for.

By the way, I would love to see more intelligent and principled conservatives like Ron Paul have access to the media, but he is excluded for the same reason that intellectual leftists are excluded.

Well, first off, Ron Paul is a bit of a kook. He has some good ideas, but not enough to make up for the Kook factor.

Secondly, Leftest Intellectual commentators are all over the media.

Thirdly, the people who work for the media systems are "true believers", meaning they don't care what the effects of their advocacy are on their corporations, they feel the cause is more important than their business.
(this is apparent. Look at how Fox News is surging while the others are loosing market share. Do they change ? No! )

Finally, Yes, we would be better off if the Media was run by conservatives. Conservatism is nothing but common sense. It's not abstract, it is altogether boring in it's obviousness.

I would dare say that MOST of the people on the right don't work for "Big Corporations." The corporate right is more like the Northeastern wing "Rockefeller" Republicans, and they are in my opinion, part of the problem. They want all the freedom with none of the responsibility for maintaining a civilization.

David

nuclearnoob · Post by **nuclearnoob** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:46 am

Dave-

I think that its hard to even talk about liberal versus conservative. Those terms have become occluded and diluted over time. One person might call himself conservative and it would probably mean something completely different to someone else. The details also seems to get sticky no matter what you believe in general.

I disagree about the media being full of true believers. Media coverage is largely sensational and covers politics in the Chris Mathews style, that is, talking about the public relations strategies and speculating about what kind of Machiavellian scheming is going on behind the scenes. That's true of right and left wing media. What we call "news" is totally uninformative and highly cynical. Its also hopelessly stupid even when it tries to get serious and talk straight policy and real events. Anyone who doesn't conform and buy along will get fired.

This is the profitable business model that fox in particular excels at. MSNBC is also successful though, and they used to be right leaning before they saw that the popular winds were changing and it became apparent that the Fox right wing news model could be mirrored for the left wing.

As far as conservatism being common sense, I don't know what you mean, since I don't know what you think conservatism means.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:55 am

Common sense:

Handing alcohol distribution over to criminals was one of the smartest moves ever made by the government of the republic and repeating that hand over with respect to some drugs will be equally successful.

ravingdave · Post by **ravingdave** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:06 pm

nuclearnoob wrote:Dave-

I think that its hard to even talk about liberal versus conservative. Those terms have become occluded and diluted over time. One person might call himself conservative and it would probably mean something completely different to someone else. The details also seems to get sticky no matter what you believe in general.

I disagree about the media being full of true believers. Media coverage is largely sensational and covers politics in the Chris Mathews style, that is, talking about the public relations strategies and speculating about what kind of Machiavellian scheming is going on behind the scenes. That's true of right and left wing media. What we call "news" is totally uninformative and highly cynical. Its also hopelessly stupid even when it tries to get serious and talk straight policy and real events. Anyone who doesn't conform and buy along will get fired.

This is the profitable business model that fox in particular excels at. MSNBC is also successful though, and they used to be right leaning before they saw that the popular winds were changing and it became apparent that the Fox right wing news model could be mirrored for the left wing.

As far as conservatism being common sense, I don't know what you mean, since I don't know what you think conservatism means.

I'm wondering if we are going sideways because of terminology?

Look, I make the point that the media is something like 95% liberal. (as in the modern meaning of the word, not the old "Classical Liberal")

How about we say Extremely partisan Democrats ?

ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOXnews, are all Headquartered in New York City.

New York City voted for Barack Obama by an 80% margin.

Where do you suppose they hire staff to man the Networks in New York City. They hire them from that pool of people who voted 80% for Barack Obama!

Add to that the fact that they are all UNION, (another Major Democrat Constituency.) and the odds of finding an occasional Republican, (let alone a Conservative Republican) in the mix is virtually zero.

Now how do you suppose this collection of ~95% New York Union Democrats are going to report the news ?

Do you seriously believe they aren't skewing the coverage ?

David

ravingdave · Post by **ravingdave** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:05 pm

MSimon wrote:Common sense:

Handing alcohol distribution over to criminals was one of the smartest moves ever made by the government of the republic and repeating that hand over with respect to some drugs will be equally successful.

You are implying that the Conservatives of today (who have specific principles of Free Markets and Moral Responsibility) are comparable with the mostly ignorant religious zealots of an era 90 years ago. The "Zeit Geist" is very different.

There used to be a saying called "Waving the Bloody shirt." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_shirt which is the effect these sort of statements are replicating. Notwithstanding that, they are likewise declaring this is equal to that, and that is equal to this other thing, when of course that isn't in evidence.

As to your allegation that This (Government banning of Unknown (at the time) Drugs ) is exactly equal to Alcohol Prohibition, and that the violence which resulted from Criminals (the Kennedy Family) exploiting the sale of illegal alcohol must always results in massive amounts of murder ( Ha! As if you could compare the St Valentine's day massacre (what, they killed like 7 rival hoodlums?) ) with today's crime.

This is very similar to the fallacy of false dichotomy.

False dichotomy

Definition: In false dichotomy, the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place. But often there are really many different options, not just two—and if we thought about them all, we might not be so quick to pick the one the arguer recommends! "

I'm not in favor of prohibition, but in the interests of intellectual honesty, I can't say it won't work just because of the US history on the subject.
(Chinese history is very different in methods and outcome.)

I suspect modern day Tobacco opponents are accomplishing prohibition. I tend to believe that if the same creeping methods had been applied to alcohol prohibition, it might very well have become permanent, and little or no violence would have resulted.

My observation of all of human history leads me to believe that people are willing to change, provided you give them sufficient time to adjust to the changes. This is why i've always advocated a philosophy of "Tripping the Trap" before it is fully set, as regards to liberal ideas about changing society.

Force their REAL agenda, and don't let them get away with slow incremental approaches, then let the Devil D*mn the stragglers.

You see, the average public is incredibly short sighted, and the only way to get them to react to a bad idea is to get them to see the danger before it happens.

You know, turn the heat up on the frog FAST enough that it realizes it's being boiled so it can jump out!

Geeze, look at this. I started off trying to make a quick reply, and now i've rambled all the way down to here! (some people call it "Raving.")

David

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:40 pm

ravingdave wrote:You are implying that the Conservatives of today (who have specific principles of Free Markets and Moral Responsibility) are comparable with the mostly ignorant religious zealots of an era 90 years ago. The "Zeit Geist" is very different.

There are a lot of left over religious zealots of an era 90 years ago still animating the so called conservative Party.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... party.html

Guys like Rep. Kirk are the bane of my existence when it comes to extolling the virtues of the conservatives. I'd love to use the "conservatives are smarter because they learn from their mistakes and can go from the specific to the general (prohibitions create black markets so prohibiting abortion might not be a good idea) - but alas the idiot conservatives are just as fruity over the issues they get emotional about as is their opposition.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:51 pm

Dave,

Your understanding of China and prohibition is very limited. Making opium illegal in China was essential to the British making a lot of money from the opium trade.

The Harrison Narcotics Act was instituted because it was unseemly for America to outlaw opiates in its colonies (great for profits) and not in the home country. Look up the History of the Harrison guy the act was named after.

"If the trade is ever legalized, it will cease to be profitable from that time. The more difficulties that attend it, the better for you and us." -- Directors of Jardine-Matheson

http://www.ctrl.org/boodleboys/boddlesboys2.html

The British trade was simply to raise opium legally in India and sell it in to the black market in China. A black market they tricked the Chinese into. Clever boys and girls those Brits.

ravingdave · Post by **ravingdave** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:57 pm

MSimon wrote:Dave,

Your understanding of China and prohibition is very limited. Making opium illegal in China was essential to the British making a lot of money from the opium trade.

The Harrison Narcotics Act was instituted because it was unseemly for America to outlaw opiates in its colonies (great for profits) and not in the home country. Look up the History of the Harrison guy the act was named after.

"If the trade is ever legalized, it will cease to be profitable from that time. The more difficulties that attend it, the better for you and us." -- Directors of Jardine-Matheson

http://www.ctrl.org/boodleboys/boddlesboys2.html

The British trade was simply to raise opium in India and sell it in to the black market in China.

I think my point is that Prohibition in China Worked.

You have been arguing that Prohibition not only doesn't work, it always results in criminal violence.

Give me your fair assessment on my next point. Do you think the current creeping methodology they are currently using to eradicate tobacco usage in this country will eventually result in tobacco being prohibited ?

David

nuclearnoob · Post by **nuclearnoob** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:02 pm

Probably the majority of the media vote Democrat. That's been somewhat established by a few studies, I think. I don't think that they are hard-line partisan, although there certainly is a pervasive democrat leaning bias in certain ways. You'd be hard pressed to find a lot of pro-union talk in the media though. Maybe some sporadic cable news talkers, or NPR coverage. It is interesting to note that one of the few thriving domestic industries these days is Holywood, which is heavily unionized. You'd think that might be a rebuttal to the argument often made that unions kill businesses (i.e. the auto industry).

I can't think of many 1st world countries that don't have unions, progressive taxation, national healthcare, and a mixed capitalist economy. If you want the United States to embark on a grand experiment in libertarianism or conservatism it might work, but I have my doubts.

ravingdave · Post by **ravingdave** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:59 pm

nuclearnoob wrote:Probably the majority of the media vote Democrat. That's been somewhat established by a few studies, I think. I don't think that they are hard-line partisan, although there certainly is a pervasive democrat leaning bias in certain ways. You'd be hard pressed to find a lot of pro-union talk in the media though. Maybe some sporadic cable news talkers, or NPR coverage. It is interesting to note that one of the few thriving domestic industries these days is Holywood, which is heavily unionized. You'd think that might be a rebuttal to the argument often made that unions kill businesses (i.e. the auto industry).

I can't think of many 1st world countries that don't have unions, progressive taxation, national healthcare, and a mixed capitalist economy. If you want the United States to embark on a grand experiment in libertarianism or conservatism it might work, but I have my doubts.

Ever hear of a grocery store chain called "Food Lion" ?
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=10649

It was a non Union Grocery store chain. News items I saw at the time indicated that this was the reason it was being investigated, because it rebuffed attempts to unionize it.

So ABC News lost in court, but the damage they did to the Food Lion chain was far greater.

Yeah, Hollywood is very Union and very Liberal. You are making my point for me. Virtually everything they produce has a liberal slant. Like this:

Why are they a successful Union business ?

They're established. (turn of the century)
They have a huge pile of capital made since the turn of the century.
They have more experience than anyone else in the world.
They have very little competition.
They have a virtual monopoly on the theater outlets.
They have had (till recently) technological advantages.
They have uniquely talented employees (actors and actresses, screenwriters, special effects gurus, etc. ) that command high salaries.

And so on...

Foreign movies (which is basically the only competition they would have) seldom do as well as American movies targeting an American Audience. Occasionally there is a break through like "Life is Beautiful", or "King of Masks", "Brotherhood of the Wolf", "Ridicule", "Slum Dog Millionaire", etc.
but for the most part, they just don't compete well for American Cash.

It's a pity because many foreign movies are by far better movies than a lot of the American crap they put out nowadays.

David

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 7:24 pm

Prohibition led to the Tong Wars. If that is your definition of worked I'd have to agree. And by that definition I'd have to say it is working exceptionally well in America. The distribution of illegal drugs is so good that teenagers can get illegal pot easier than they can get legal beer.

Smashing success.

Your problem with China is that any problem looked at from sufficiently far away becomes invisible. They have not solved their drug problem. What they do is chop off a few heads every year and tell you they have solved their drug problem. They never seem to run low of heads to chop.

ravingdave · Post by **ravingdave** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 6:25 pm

MSimon wrote:Prohibition led to the Tong Wars. If that is your definition of worked I'd have to agree. And by that definition I'd have to say it is working exceptionally well in America. The distribution of illegal drugs is so good that teenagers can get illegal pot easier than they can get legal beer.

Smashing success.

Your problem with China is that any problem looked at from sufficiently far away becomes invisible. They have not solved their drug problem. What they do is chop off a few heads every year and tell you they have solved their drug problem. They never seem to run low of heads to chop.

I dare say it is the nature of humanity that chopping off certain heads every year will be in the best interest of mankind.

But what about my question ?

Do you believe that the current incremental approach will result in a successful prohibition of Tobacco ?

David

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Jun 27, 2009 12:16 am

ravingdave wrote:
MSimon wrote:Prohibition led to the Tong Wars. If that is your definition of worked I'd have to agree. And by that definition I'd have to say it is working exceptionally well in America. The distribution of illegal drugs is so good that teenagers can get illegal pot easier than they can get legal beer.

Smashing success.

Your problem with China is that any problem looked at from sufficiently far away becomes invisible. They have not solved their drug problem. What they do is chop off a few heads every year and tell you they have solved their drug problem. They never seem to run low of heads to chop.

I dare say it is the nature of humanity that chopping off certain heads every year will be in the best interest of mankind.

But what about my question ?

Do you believe that the current incremental approach will result in a successful prohibition of Tobacco ?

David

And you trust government to get which heads to chop right? And more: you trust the Chinese Communist government to get which heads to chop correct? Touching.

==

Yes. Tobacco prohibition is just a matter of time. With current taxes on tobacco it is cheaper for a pack a day guy to switch to marijuana than to keep smoking tobacco. When the government owns health care tobacco will be made illegal as a "cost saving" measure.

You might like this on why America is legalizing currently illegal drugs.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... o-pot.html

Simon

ravingdave · Post by **ravingdave** » Sun Jun 28, 2009 10:13 pm

MSimon wrote:
ravingdave wrote:

I dare say it is the nature of humanity that chopping off certain heads every year will be in the best interest of mankind.

But what about my question ?

Do you believe that the current incremental approach will result in a successful prohibition of Tobacco ?

David

MSimon wrote: And you trust government to get which heads to chop right? And more: you trust the Chinese Communist government to get which heads to chop correct? Touching.

In this you have a point. This is one of those places where Pragmatism is in conflict with Idealism. From a Pragmatic point of view, it doesn't matter much to the state if you cut off a few extra innocent heads, but Idealism cannot stand the thought of an Innocent person being murdered.

During the eradication of the Opium usage in China, they doubtlessly cut off a few innocent heads.

==

MSimon wrote: Yes. Tobacco prohibition is just a matter of time. With current taxes on tobacco it is cheaper for a pack a day guy to switch to marijuana than to keep smoking tobacco. When the government owns health care tobacco will be made illegal as a "cost saving" measure.

You might like this on why America is legalizing currently illegal drugs.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... o-pot.html

Simon

Okay, so you are in effect conceding that Prohibition can be made to work if it is brought about Incrementally as opposed to suddenly?

If this is true, then Alcohol Prohibition might have worked had they done it slowly enough, like they've been slowly moving American public opinion to the Left and towards decadance for decades.

If this IS true, and Alcohol prohibition could be made to work (without violence) if it were done slowly enough, then the Violence argument really isn't valid when it comes to actually prohibiting substances, it's only valid concerning the MANNER in which substances become prohibited.

Is there a hole in my logic somewhere ?

David