The Left is Brain-dead

[Haroki]

Quote from TorontoTrader2:

Rubbish.

Don't you know, the very FIRST thing an invading army does is to take control of the media outlets.

If you dare to look you will see our media is tighly contolled and owned by a small cartel...it is not free by any standard.

Look at the movie and TV content that pollutes kids minds, look closely at the credits. You'll see the same familiar names.
And same cartel own the print and news media.

Make no mistake, bush as a regime leader will have secured control of the media and those who run it.

Unless you mean to tell me he is the first regime leader to not control the media?

If you really believe this, then you need to stop watching so much FOX......

Thanks for the gif !!!!!!

Jessica Alba or Jessica Biel the hottest? Naaaah, Jessica Simpson.....

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from Magna:

In May 1964 Senator Goldwater suggested in a speech that tactical nuclear weapons should be treated more like conventional weapons, and that they should be used in Vietnam. He argued that nuclear weapons should have been used at Dien Bien Phu to defoliate trees, and that in similar fashion "low-yield atomic weapons" should be used as defoliants along South Vietnam's borders.

The Pentagon responded to this by describing technical characteristics of nuclear weapons, arguing that it was absurd to call them conventional weapons. Goldwater persisted that the army possessed very small nuclear weapons that could and should be used. In a speech in Detroit on Labor Day 1964 LBJ came out strongly against Goldwater's views. He described the catastrophe of nuclear war and said, "Make no mistake. There is no such thing as a conventional nuclear weapon." All this took place prior to the election.


Actually it was Goldwater's repeated assertions that we should use so-called "tactical nukes" in Vietnam that stoked the idea he was reckless. Johnson made use of that in his ad to reinforce and further the notion. Like I said earlier, his ad didn't take place in a vacuum. And it would have had no effect if Goldwater hadn't made repeated statements wanting to treat nukes as conventional weapons.

Whatever. My point was simply that this hardball stuff goes back a long way and Democrats bascially invented it.

Haroki makes a great point about McCarthy. Liberals like to gloss over one simple point. McCarthy was right. The government was riddled with communist spies, put there in the FDR and Truman administrations. Rather than attack the problem, they attacked McCarthy and with the help of a marxist-friendly press, they managed to destroy McCarthy. One wonders how the story would have played out today, with McCarthy having access to alternative news outlets and talk radio keeping the public informed.

 

[cgroupman]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

talk radio keeping the public informed.

Sorry, but I gotta dive back in here with this comment. Talk radio is 99% single source propaganda, yes, on BOTH sides. I listen to several sources, from Limbaugh to Air America, and I have not heard much more than preaching to the choir, name calling, sarcasm, and worse. I watch O'reilly and I watch Chris Matthews, both espousing fair and balanced discussions. Well, that swampland in Miami is looking pretty good.

One guy, Doug Stephan, who I like, has come pretty close to being Independent. A republican who is against the war, against illegal immigration, for capitalism, and he's a family farmer.


c

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from cgroupman:

Sorry, but I gotta dive back in here with this comment. Talk radio is 99% single source propaganda, yes, on BOTH sides. I listen to several sources, from Limbaugh to Air America, and I have not heard much more than preaching to the choir, name calling, sarcasm, and worse. I watch O'reilly and I watch Chris Matthews, both espousing fair and balanced discussions. Well, that swampland in Miami is looking pretty good.

One guy, Doug Stephan, who I like, has come pretty close to being Independent. A republican who is against the war, against illegal immigration, for capitalism, and he's a family farmer.


c

They have a point of view, but at least Limbaugh is up front about it. Chris Mtthews would probably claim he is "middle of the road" or "objective", which is a joke. I think the important thing though is they offer the public access to information that might not get past the editing process at the NY Time or Washington Post. That's a subtle point about liberal media bias. It's not always what they say or write about a topic, but what they are willing to put on the air in the first place.

 

[cgroupman]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

They have a point of view, but at least Limbaugh is up front about it. Chris Mtthews would probably claim he is "middle of the road" or "objective", which is a joke. I think the important thing though is they offer the public access to information that might not get past the editing process at the NY Time or Washington Post. That's a subtle point about liberal media bias. It's not always what they say or write about a topic, but what they are willing to put on the air in the first place.

Fair enough.


c

 

[Magna]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

That's a subtle point about liberal media bias. It's not always what they say or write about a topic, but what they are willing to put on the air in the first place.

Good observation (although it applies equally to conservative media bias). The overwhelming majority of "bias" in the media, aside from the obvious shriekfests on both sides, is in the selection of topic and the frequency of presentation. In other words, what even gets on the air, and how many times it's repeated. That's the true bias that makes a difference and has the greatest impact.

 

[cgroupman]

Quote from Magna:

Good observation (although it applies equally to conservative media bias). The overwhelming majority of "bias" in the media, aside from the obvious shriekfests on both sides, is in the selection of topic and the frequency of presentation. In other words, what even gets on the air, and how many times it's repeated. That's the true bias that makes a difference and has the greatest impact.

I agree, both sides tend to believe that if you repeat something often enough, it somehow becomes truth. Media pounding buzz lines from the daily handouts is akin to payola for the recording industry, except now they do it for politcal reasons.

On the topic of who should ask questions at these presidential candiate debates, I think having the pundits from the opposie side do some asking. I know they try to make it fair and balanced, yeah right, LOL.

Maybe not Ann Coulter or Michael Moore.


c

 

[maxpi]

Quote from Magna:

Good observation (although it applies equally to conservative media bias). The overwhelming majority of "bias" in the media, aside from the obvious shriekfests on both sides, is in the selection of topic and the frequency of presentation. In other words, what even gets on the air, and how many times it's repeated. That's the true bias that makes a difference and has the greatest impact.

I have not watched major media for political info since the huge, huge, anti abortion rally in DC, maybe it was 20 years ago, with an estimated 900,000 to 1,000,000 people... that was not covered in any major media!! I had to sit through stories on demonstrations with as little as 2-25 people many, many times before that, typically they were anti war or anti nuclear power, etc.. Screw that garbage, you want accounts of important things international, get a Soldier of Fortune mag, domestic, I really don't know..

 

[piezoe]

Quote from Magna:

Agree, it sure would be nice if Democratic candidates stated that they would not raise taxes. Likewise, if Republican candidates stated that they would not raise taxes. Problem is, I clearly remember when Republican George Bush Sr. loudly and proudly proclaimed that, if elected, under no circumstances would he raise taxes (the infamous "Read My Lips"). But after he got into office he did just that, raise taxes, which helped cost him the 1992 election. So while it would be nice to hear from both sides it's still pretty much campaign rhetoric at this stage.

Sorry, but i don't understand the practical difference between lowering my taxes by 5$ and, as a consequence, reducing the value of the 20 bucks in my savings account to $15 and raising my taxes by 5$ and not effecting the value of the money in my savings account. Can you explain please?

 

[brotherben]

Anyone who thinks the mainstream media is not biased to the left if correct. They are eyebrow deep in it. Hillary Clinton and Bill are so untrustworthy they are most likely going to be rejected after all. Watch her eyes, especially when she is perturbed. There is so much stuff in their closets Dick Morris will make a billion dollars as he simply opens the closet door and shows America what he has known for many years.