Republicans rush to build firewall to save the House

[DiogenesLamp]

You are one seriously confused individual. You state the facts and then come up with the wrong answers in almost every case. You actually think MORE government control is the way to get LESS government control,and the way to preserve the Constitution is to modify it.

Okay,   you keep substituting *YOUR* words for my words.   You need to stop doing that.   Every place you have inserted the words "More Government"   you need to replace them with "Voters."   


It would be the VOTERS who would control the media through a representative democratic process;  the same as we currently use to control the government.   


Yes,  I think "voter control"   is the way to tame the Propaganda organ of the Government party.    You make them hire conservatives in proportion to their representation in the Country.    You make them fire liberal staff until  they match the demographics of their audience.   


And furthermore,   I am not *stuck* on this idea.    I have asked other people to propose methods by which we can eliminate one party control of the media,   but so far people feel that it is more important to signal how virtuous they are by tearing down a strawman version of the idea that I proposed. 

[EC]

We already have voter control. It's called changing the channel.

[Hoodat]

The weapon which is most dangerous to us and the future of our nation is one party control of the major propaganda tools,  which are the networks.

I believe you overestimate the power of the networks.  Viewership of the big three continues to decline year after year after year.  Newspapers are a dying industry.  The only things thriving today are Conservative talk radio and the internet.  The former because it has a built-in audience - people with AM car radios driving to or from an actual job.  The latter because it is unregulated.  And as long as Republicans don't mess that one up, there will always be a plethora of information available to anyone who cares.

This election is a prime example.  Both candidates suck.  And everyone knows it.  How?  Because of the internet.  And there is nothing that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FoxNews, or NPR can do to change that.

Yet you propose the Uniparty solution.  Instead of opposing and stopping what the Democrats do, just take control of it instead and do exactly what they do.  Sorry, I can't accept that.  If Republicans are not willing to stand on principle, then they need to step back and get the hell out of the way.  From NPR to food stamps to social security to Obamacare, government must be rooted out of all these functions permanently and the Constitution of the United States of America must be restored.

[geronl]

Even if Trump does not win;

He tore down the establishment in the GOP;

If we get another chance, let's nominate someone who wants to tear down the Democrat establishment and big government too.

[DiogenesLamp]

How can George HW Bush's term of 4 years after Reagan's be worse than 8 years of Dubya with possibly, in the view of many, the biggest foreign policy mistake ever?

Because those four years of George HW  *CREATED*   the 8 years of Bill Clinton.   

Still, I think McCain could have been elected if the economy had not turned south,

Nope.  It was just the media hyperventilating about the "economy turning south."   They wanted to portray the party in power as a failure,  and this is how they did it.   They also  ignored the fact that the reason the economy went south is because of Bill Clinton.   

If you haven't seen this video,   you *NEED*   to see this video.   It explains how Bill Clinton (and others)  *CAUSED*   the housing crises,  which caused the financial crises of 2008.   



http://youtu.be/1RZVw3no2A4


The media was going to hammer the economy to damage Republicans,  just as they did in 2006.   

also, I don't hold the view but I do know folks who think it was a big mistake to choose Palin.

Because the media said so.   Because the media pulled out all the stops to attack and savage her.    They were all "Woman Power"   until John McCain pulled one of their own plays out of their own book and made the election about gender.   


Suddenly they *HATED*   "Woman  Power"  because this woman represented a political ideology they hated,  and so therefore they had to attack her and destroy her despite her accomplishments which would be the envy of any of their liberal woman @$$wipes they would have supported.     


"Palin is not one of us."    Was their attitude.   She did not go to fancy schools and she did not toe the liberal party line.    She represented a threat to their gender identity politics because everything she did and everything she was was anathema to what they claimed was good for women and society.   


She was the "Clarence Thomas"  of Gender politics.   Someone who was very successful and competent,  but whom the media could not allow  to be seen as a hero or even respectable.   


Your friends hated Palin,  not because she was actually bad,   but because the media brainwashed them with their tricks and propaganda to believe Palin was bad.   


Had Palin been Elizabeth Warren,   the media would have convinced everyone she was the Greatest Woman on the face of the planet!    (Like they are currently trying to do with that Psychotic Hate-Witch Hillary.)   

[geronl]

@ScottinVA, I find that number remarkably high.  Do you have a few links?  I'd like to read more.

Actually 80% of party members supporting the nominee is remarkably low. A lot of us have left the party.

[DiogenesLamp]

“In God’s name, I beg of you to think.” - DiogenesLamp

[Norm Lenhart]

Okay,   you keep substituting *YOUR* words for my words.   You need to stop doing that.   Every place you have inserted the words "More Government"   you need to replace them with "Voters."   


It would be the VOTERS who would control the media through a representative democratic process;  the same as we currently use to control the government.   


Yes,  I think "voter control"   is the way to tame the Propaganda organ of the Government party.    You make them hire conservatives in proportion to their representation in the Country.    You make them fire liberal staff until  they match the demographics of their audience.   


And furthermore,   I am not *stuck* on this idea.    I have asked other people to propose methods by which we can eliminate one party control of the media,   but so far people feel that it is more important to signal how virtuous they are by tearing down a strawman version of the idea that I proposed.

Let me provide you with some inside info as a former print and internet journalist with well over a decade under my belt.

If you think for a nanosecond you can control the media by voting or establishing govt groups, you are simply engaged in lying to yourself. The media is a power unto itself guided by advertizing cash and political favors and any govt anything is quickly staffed by democrat operatives regardless of who is in the White House.

J school is taught by hard left to Communist professors. Editors are subservient entirely to the publisher. they are glorified copywriters and go-betweens. Publishers are in bed with the leftist political machine from the local to the global level.

The only thing that matters (EDIT) Directly is cash. A media outlet will (and many have) bankrupt themselves before printing honest journalism because the agenda is what matters MORE. This is why you see media monopolies with the blessing of the FCC. The Publisher is then reassigned to a new paper (or his TV counterpart to a new station/market).

To break the media, you have to stop consuming media. There is no other way.

[Oceander]

Let me provide you with some inside info as a former print and internet journalist with well over a decade under my belt.

If you think for a nanosecond you can control the media by voting or establishing govt groups, you are simply engaged in lying to yourself. The media is a power unto itself guided by advertizing cash and political favors and any govt anything is quickly staffed by democrat operatives regardless of who is in the White House.

J school is taught by hard left to Communist professors. Editors are subservient entirely to the publisher. they are glorified copywriters and go-betweens. Publishers are in bed with the leftist political machine from the local to the global level.

The only thing that matters is cash. A media outlet will (and many have) bankrupt themselves before printing honest journalism because the agenda is what matters. This is why you see media monopolies with the blessing of the FCC. The Publisher is then reassigned to a new paper (or his TV counterpart to a new station/market).

To break the media, you have to stop consuming media. There is no other way.

@Norm Lenhart
That last sentence is the money quote!!!

[DiogenesLamp]

Even if Trump does not win;

He tore down the establishment in the GOP;

And those salivating so much on a Trump loss; we will see how happy you are in a year or two.

I have noted that psychologists regard a child's ability to comprehend future consequences as a well defined transition point towards maturity.   


I have also noted that a great quantity of people seem to be unable to extend this concept to adult issues such as politics and the likely consequences of their actions.    (or inaction.)   

 
George HW Bush,  for example,   seemed completely oblivious to the fact that if he made that deal with Democrats,   he would have it shoved down his throat in the next election.   


Any fool could see he was making a colossal blunder,  yet he went right on and did it anyway.   


We seem to have a lot of people who are blind to the future consequences of their actions (or lack thereof.)   

[sneakypete]

For the record, I am not a 'fundie' or fundamentalist Christian.  I am a Present Truth Christian.  Big difference, not that you would understand since your bigoted ignorance is on full display for everyone to see.<<

@Hoodat

Speaking of "bigoted ignorance"....

I am pleased to see you admit "The Truth" is a fluid thing when it comes to religious beliefs.


>>As for Planned Parenthood, it is clear that a majority of American taxpayers oppose using their tax dollars to subsidize that organization/industry, primarily because it is not a legitimate function of government.<<

HOW much governement money is spend on Planned Parenthood,and for what purposes? I have no problem with free birth control for the people who can least afford to have more children,and you would have to be a fool to not understand that helping the poor limit the size of their families will save hundreds of millions over the years,as well as result in fewer Dim voters.


Don't let any of that get in the way of your dogma,though.

 >> Your bigoted assumptions on religion aside.  Planned Parenthood can survive perfectly fine without my tax dollars being taken from me at the point of a gun to subsidize it.<<

Speaking of bigotry once again,not to mention ignorance,doesn't the majority of the funding for Planned Parenthood in this country come from donations?

I understand a certain amount of federal money goes for PP missions to 3rd World Countries,but I have no idea if all of it is federal money or only 1 percent of it. I am opposed to ANY federal money going to any other nation for birth control or any other non-emergency program. If the people running those countries can't understand that a dollar spent on birth control today can save thousands of "tomorrow dollars",they need to be starving to death and eating each other,and it all comes under the heading of "not our business".

Now,if any Americans want to use their own money to donate to such causes and don't apply for a tax reduction to make me their silent partner,I don't have any problem at all with that.

>>I am shocked to discover that there are individuals on this forum who would defend federal spending outside the confined of Constitutional authority.  <<

BullBush! The only thing that shocks you is money not being spent on YOUR pet projects.

 BTW,why not quote to us what the Constitution says about what comprises Constitutional Authority to spend money. Especially income tax money,considering we didn't even have a income tax the first 100 years or so.

[EC]

PPFA is the largest single provider of reproductive health services, including abortion, in the United States.[8] In their 2014 Annual Report, PPFA reported seeing over 2.5 million patients in over 4 million clinical visits and performing a total of nearly 9.5 million discrete services including 324,000 abortions.[11] The organization has a combined annual revenue of US$1.3 billion, including roughly US$530 million in government funding such as Medicaid reimbursements.[3][10]

- wikipedia, but well sourced.

[sneakypete]

Okay,   you keep substituting *YOUR* words for my words.   You need to stop doing that.   Every place you have inserted the words "More Government"   you need to replace them with "Voters."   

In other words,I have to accept your use of incorrect working and by extension your wrong assumptions,and just let your comments pass without comment? If you want to call a Ford a Dodge,I should be fine with that,right?  No wonder you are so fond of People's Committees.


It would be the VOTERS who would control the media through a representative democratic process;  the same as we currently use to control the government.   <<

@DiogenesLamp

Ahhh,"Committee by Comrades"! What could possibly go wrong there?


>>Yes,  I think "voter control"   is the way to tame the Propaganda organ of the Government party.    You make them hire conservatives in proportion to their representation in the Country.    You make them fire liberal staff until  they match the demographics of their audience.   <<

Maybe we could make them take Loyalty Oaths,and require lie detector tests? That just shouts "Freedom and Constitutional Values" doesn't it?


>>And furthermore,   I am not *stuck* on this idea.    I have asked other people to propose methods by which we can eliminate one party control of the media,   but so far people feel that it is more important to signal how virtuous they are by tearing down a strawman version of the idea that I proposed. <<

Gotcha. Nobody agrees with you,so you should be able to dictate how things run.

[DiogenesLamp]

We already have voter control. It's called changing the channel.

You mean everyone in the nation,  including little children and the mentally insane.   


It also does not address the issue of what  people who don't turn the channel will be brainwashed with.   


You are proposing the Ostrich head in the sand method of dealing with malignant propaganda.     





If that approach worked,  the Jews could have simply ignored Hitler.   


Ignoring propaganda will solve nothing because *OTHER PEOPLE*  will lap it up and act upon it. 

[EC]

Correct. They will. Which, you know, is kind of their right to do so?

[DiogenesLamp]

I believe you overestimate the power of the networks.

You ever heard of this thing called "Television Commercials"?   





How does that stuff work? 

[DiogenesLamp]

Actually 80% of party members supporting the nominee is remarkably low. A lot of us have left the party.

Well obviously it is not much of a political party if a minority has veto power,  is it? 

[Suppressed]

PBS is always doing those telethons, or at least seasonally. I don't know how their funding breaks down.

Here's the thing that most people don't get...

A lot of the funding for NPR comes from licensing of their content to local stations, which pay the licensing fee.  That local station funding comes mostly from state/local sources.  So the effort to "defund NPR" is largely a state/local issue.



Unless you cut that licensing of liberal shows (by cutting funding from state/local/college governments), NPR will continue to produce them.  Congress cutting funding does little but hurt those who try it.  "Don't throw me into that briar patch," cries Br'er Leftie!  (They don't use dialect, as that would be racist, you see.)

[sneakypete]

I believe you overestimate the power of the networks.  Viewership of the big three continues to decline year after year after year.  Newspapers are a dying industry.  The only things thriving today are Conservative talk radio and the internet.  The former because it has a built-in audience - people with AM car radios driving to or from an actual job.  The latter because it is unregulated.  And as long as Republicans don't mess that one up, there will always be a plethora of information available to anyone who cares.

This election is a prime example.  Both candidates suck.  And everyone knows it.  How?  Because of the internet.  And there is nothing that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FoxNews, or NPR can do to change that.

Yet you propose the Uniparty solution.  Instead of opposing and stopping what the Democrats do, just take control of it instead and do exactly what they do.  Sorry, I can't accept that.  If Republicans are not willing to stand on principle, then they need to step back and get the hell out of the way.  From NPR to food stamps to social security to Obamacare, government must be rooted out of all these functions permanently and the Constitution of the United States of America must be restored.

@Hoodat  @DiogenesLamp

DAYUM! You absolutely NAILED it with that response,Hoodat!

I would only add that streaming video channels and pay per view channels like sat dishes are now dominating viewers programming choices,and it seems like to me (my own biases may be showing here) that the most popular streaming and sat dish programs are far from leftist in viewpoint or story lines.

I have seen a recent trend with the Big Network Broadcast stations starting to branch out from "message" tv programming to straight entertainment programming,though. They pretty much don't have any choice because the consumers now have a HUGE (Yuge if you are a Donald Little Fingers fan) amount of choices to make when it comes to what they want to view,and a finite amount of time available to watch them. In fact,if you were able to watch tv 20 hours a day now you STILL wouldn't have enough time to watch all the intelligent and interesting shows available.

ABC,CBS,and NBC can no longer get away with their old standby mindset of "they will watch it because that's all there is to watch" POV if they want to avoid bankruptcy. Sometimes even being "free" ain't enough to pull in viewers. Hell,I can pull in over 1500 free channels using my ROKU. Granted,probably 1400 of them are of no interest to me,but that still leaves a possible 100 channels that are,and there are only so many hours in the day to watch tv.

[sneakypete]

If we get another chance, let's nominate someone who wants to tear down the Democrat establishment and big government too.

@geronl

Well,a valid argument CAN be made that destroying the alleged Republican Party of today IS taking down a part of the Dim establishment.

We have had a virtual One Party political system ever since that evil bastard Poppy Bush was voted into office.

[Suppressed]

It would be the VOTERS who would control the media through a representative democratic process;  the same as we currently use to control the government.   

But educating and converting the electorate is hard! says Authoritarian Barbie.

There's a segment of so-called "conservatives" who believe that we're going to achieve magical ends without putting in the groundwork to achieve success via a democratic republican process.

[DiogenesLamp]

Let me provide you with some inside info as a former print and internet journalist with well over a decade under my belt.

If you think for a nanosecond you can control the media by voting or establishing govt groups, you are simply engaged in lying to yourself. The media is a power unto itself guided by advertizing cash and political favors and any govt anything is quickly staffed by democrat operatives regardless of who is in the White House.

J school is taught by hard left to Communist professors. Editors are subservient entirely to the publisher. they are glorified copywriters and go-betweens. Publishers are in bed with the leftist political machine from the local to the global level.

The only thing that matters (EDIT) Directly is cash. A media outlet will (and many have) bankrupt themselves before printing honest journalism because the agenda is what matters MORE. This is why you see media monopolies with the blessing of the FCC. The Publisher is then reassigned to a new paper (or his TV counterpart to a new station/market).

To break the media, you have to stop consuming media. There is no other way.

Well first of all,   it is just a proposal.   Again,  I have been actively soliciting proposals from *OTHER*  people,   but they would seemingly rather rant and mischaracterize *my*  idea than come up with one of their own.   


Second of all,   the media must presumably obey equal opportunity in hiring law,  and conceivably the right sorts and quantity of lawsuits could make inroads into their staffing if pursued adequately,  especially if their licensing and other government controlled operating privileges are threatened.     


 Third of all,   it will do no good for *YOU*   to stop consuming media when the rest of the nation will keep it afloat anyway,   so a "solution"  that doesn't actually solve a problem isn't really a solution. 


But I do agree with you about one  thing.   Reducing or eliminating our own consumption of the propaganda is a start.    Same thing with the entertainment media.   


If you must buy movies,  buy foreign movies.   If you are going to be paying a communist,  it might as well be a foreign communist. 

[Suppressed]

The level of GOP support for Trump is hovering around 80%, and that includes those resigned to having to cast a vote for him in order to keep Hillary out of the White House.  That hardly constitutes his "base."

Since many of us have left the GOP recently, that number is skewed somewhat artificially higher than we might otherwise think.  A high slice of a shrinking GOP portion of the electorate isn't necessarily something to crow about.

[sneakypete]

Actually 80% of party members supporting the nominee is remarkably low. A lot of us have left the party.

@geronl

Based on nothing at all other than my own WAG,I'm guessing there will be a lot of people voting for Trump that are normally Dim voters,but find Bubbette! to be just "one step too far."

Face it,her rabid supporters are the BLM/ghetto rat crowd,the Union crowd, and the "Why-Men?" crowd. Beyond that agenda crowd she has to rely entirely on the clueless,and a awful lot of people that usually vote Dim aren't really True Believers. They vote Dim because they are afraid of the Religious Right coming to power.

And since Trump is basically a "Life-Long Dim in Republican Clothing",voting for him isn't that much of a stretch for them.

Face it,if Bubbette! was running against your mailman,regardless of who your mailman is,he would beat her by historic proportions. Trump as an opponent was the best chance she had of winning. She has to be the most horrible and hated major party candidate in history.

[Suppressed]

To break the media, you have to stop consuming media. There is no other way.

The problem is, conservatives have done that, meaning conservative outlets shutter before liberal ones.  Look at city after city after city that had multiple papers, and tell me which has survived...the liberal one.  Conservative papers that try to start up ... fail.

Glenn Beck has done admirable work in trying to start an alternative media movement, actually putting his money where his mouth is, but look at how supposed conservatives have turned on him while they themselves sit on the sidelines and whine.