Republicans rush to build firewall to save the House

[Norm Lenhart]

Does it appear to be working to you?   

Actually yes. Slower than I'd like but yes it is. This election I managed to get more people to stand on principle than I did last election. And by a good margin too. Last election I got more people to stand on principle than the one prior. It got Robinson damn pissed. That made me even happier.

Now imagine what a bunch of people doing that could get done if they tried. Instead of just ensuring liberal scum like Romney and Trump were not empowered to destroy conservatism, we could advance to actually electing conservatives.

Instead, we have to waste most of our time fighting the same battles with mostly the same people who make the same excuses year after year instead of advancing the ball. Which obviously leads to the correct conclusion that some so called conservatives do not want the ball advanced at all.

[DiogenesLamp]

That's cute and all, but what did you mean to say?

It means that most of the responses I see are knee jerk and reactionary rather than well thought out considerations of the subject matter.   

It takes me quite a long time to weigh certain ideas,  and if someone can respond in mere seconds,  it appears as if they haven't really given an idea it's due consideration. 


"In God’s name, I beg of you to think."

[DiogenesLamp]

We need an elected body to tell us what to think, I guess

I actually think some of you need doctors and thorazine. 

[geronl]

Instead, we have to waste most of our time fighting the same battles with mostly the same people who make the same excuses year after year instead of advancing the ball. Which obviously leads to the correct conclusion that some so called conservatives do not want the ball advanced at all.

Now they stabbed the ball and sat on it and declared it to be a grand victory.

[Sanguine]

It means that most of the responses I see are knee jerk and reactionary rather than well thought out considerations of the subject matter.   

It takes me quite a long time to weigh certain ideas,  and if someone can respond in mere seconds,  it appears as if they haven't really given an idea it's due consideration. 


"In God’s name, I beg of you to think."

Not sure why you commented on my comment, but I assure you my "amens" were well thought out.

[DiogenesLamp]

The media is not on the ballot. They won't lose a thing if Trump wins, it will give them 4 years of mocking and belittling. It'll be fun for them.

I think if EEOC prosecutions were launched against them,   the media would have to scramble to defend itself.   It would also likely have to pay fines out the nose.   

We currently have a symbiotic system between media and government that protects the media from the force of the law.    A Democrat President would continue that special status for the media,   but there is a good chance that Trump will allow the laws to do their job for a change.   


I'm hoping that RICO investigations of media collusion with Democrats will be launched.   

[EC]

It means that most of the responses I see are knee jerk and reactionary rather than well thought out considerations of the subject matter.   

It takes me quite a long time to weigh certain ideas,  and if someone can respond in mere seconds,  it appears as if they haven't really given an idea it's due consideration. 


"In God’s name, I beg of you to think."

But you are assuming we who "knee jerk respond" (according to you) have not thought of or discussed this before. With several posters on this thread, that is simply not the case. It's an old and in some cases well worn topic of discussion for us.

[DiogenesLamp]

And until the public cares about such things, it will continue.

The public will not care about jackbooted thugs kicking down the doors of "untermenschen" if the media does not report it.   


The public will not care about things of which they are not informed,  and that is the road to despotism.   

[corbe]

I actually think some of you need doctors and thorazine. 

   That's not helping, either.

[DiogenesLamp]

Actually yes. Slower than I'd like but yes it is. This election I managed to get more people to stand on principle than I did last election. And by a good margin too. Last election I got more people to stand on principle than the one prior. It got Robinson damn pissed. That made me even happier.

Methinks your motivation is more about your feelings than it is about what is right.   One who is motivated by the right reasons does not concern oneself with making other people "pissed."   

Now imagine what a bunch of people doing that could get done if they tried. Instead of just ensuring liberal scum like Romney and Trump were not empowered to destroy conservatism, we could advance to actually electing conservatives.

Instead, we have to waste most of our time fighting the same battles with mostly the same people who make the same excuses year after year instead of advancing the ball. Which obviously leads to the correct conclusion that some so called conservatives do not want the ball advanced at all.

Isaac Newton's model of the universe was accurate so far as it went.   We later learned that it deviated from reality in certain ways brought to light by Einstein.   


You have a model of society and politics in your head that you use to make your projections about what you expect to happen.     


I perceive it to be not a very good one.    It appears to have overly naive assumptions about the nature of man and the nature of the society in which we live. 

I believe it's predicting power is dreadfully bad. 

[DiogenesLamp]

Not sure why you commented on my comment, but I assure you my "amens" were well thought out.

You were "Amening"  the notion that NPR was a significant part of the problem.   Do you consider the existence of NPR a significant part of the problem regarding the politics and direction of this nation?   


I don't.    I agree it's part of the problem,   but it is of trivial significance when compared to larger parts of the problem.   


Focusing on NPR is "Penny wise and Dollar foolish."   


Meaning not well thought out. 

[DiogenesLamp]

But you are assuming we who "knee jerk respond" (according to you) have not thought of or discussed this before. With several posters on this thread, that is simply not the case. It's an old and in some cases well worn topic of discussion for us.

The deviant thread topic under discussion and for which my comment was a response was regarding NPR being a SIGNIFICANT problem with the direction of the nation.   


I opined that the most serious problem facing the nation was one party control of the information streams,  and then the topic deviated to NPR.   


Do you think it was 'well thought out"   for NPR to be compared to the mainstream media in terms of it's significance to elections or government policy?   


This is exactly what I mean when I say people will give "knee jerk responses",  that is,  unless you really believe NPR is the more significant problem.   

Do you? 
 

[DiogenesLamp]

   That's not helping, either.

I catch a lot of digs.  Occasionally I throw one back.  :) 

[Norm Lenhart]

Methinks your motivation is more about your feelings than it is about what is right.   One who is motivated by the right reasons does not concern oneself with making other people "pissed."   






Isaac Newton's model of the universe was accurate so far as it went.   We later learned that it deviated from reality in certain ways brought to light by Einstein.   


You have a model of society and politics in your head that you use to make your projections about what you expect to happen.     


I perceive it to be not a very good one.    It appears to have overly naive assumptions about the nature of man and the nature of the society in which we live. 

I believe it's predicting power is dreadfully bad.

@CatherineofAragon

Hey Kat? Dio made a funny!

Actually Dio, my predictive prowess is near 100% My big miss was predicting Palin would run in 12. Off the top of my head, since then I have called every single GOP cave in, sometimes weeks in advance, Mitch, Ryan, Cruz getting taken out by the GOP, Predicted that the GOP would nominate a more liberal guy than Romney in 16 and that the idiot wing of the voter base would follow him into another loss.

I MAY have missed a couple minor issues somewhere along the way but on the overall, on the big ones, my record is rock solid.

[Sanguine]

You were "Amening"  the notion that NPR was a significant part of the problem.   Do you consider the existence of NPR a significant part of the problem regarding the politics and direction of this nation?   


I don't.    I agree it's part of the problem,   but it is of trivial significance when compared to larger parts of the problem.   


Focusing on NPR is "Penny wise and Dollar foolish."   


Meaning not well thought out.

Now see, there you go again.  We can have a discussion on the merits of NPR, but probably not when you passively-aggressively accuse one poster of writing knee-jerk reactions to another poster's allegedly poorly-thought-out comment.   It just doesn't make you look good, and puts a damper on conversation. 

[EC]

The deviant thread topic under discussion and for which my comment was a response was regarding NPR being a SIGNIFICANT problem with the direction of the nation.   


I opined that the most serious problem facing the nation was one party control of the information streams,  and then the topic deviated to NPR.   


Do you think it was 'well thought out"   for NPR to be compared to the mainstream media in terms of it's significance to elections or government policy?   


This is exactly what I mean when I say people will give "knee jerk responses",  that is,  unless you really believe NPR is the more significant problem.   

Do you? 
 

It is the same problem. Merely smaller, yet one we have much more detail on since "unbiasing" (as well as defunding) have been attempted on NPR before. Didn't work there, so it's not going to work on a larger, profit funded media.

Now, your idea of a voter controlled "board" to oversee the media. You are relying on voters common sense and fairness here - NOT a terribly good idea, as the current shit show illustrates (pick a thread, any thread, for proof).

Consider the History Channel. Remember that channel's charter and it's first couple of years? Educational and interesting programs were it's reason for existing. The voters voted with their remotes - now it's pawn stars and storage wars. Fair enough if you like that sort of thing, but a far cry from it's original remit. The voters did that. No one else. The same people you expect to maintain balance in all broadcast media.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I think if EEOC prosecutions were launched against them,   the media would have to scramble to defend itself.   It would also likely have to pay fines out the nose.   

We currently have a symbiotic system between media and government that protects the media from the force of the law.    A Democrat President would continue that special status for the media,   but there is a good chance that Trump will allow the laws to do their job for a change.   


I'm hoping that RICO investigations of media collusion with Democrats will be launched.

Idiotic idea. Your EEOC board would quickly get controlled by liberals.

[DiogenesLamp]

@CatherineofAragon

Hey Kat? Dio made a funny!

Actually Dio, my predictive prowess is near 100% My big miss was predicting Palin would run in 12. Off the top of my head, since then I have called every single GOP cave in, sometimes weeks in advance,

Predicting cowards would behave like cowards is no great feat of mental prowess.   

I MAY have missed a couple minor issues somewhere along the way but on the overall, on the big ones, my record is rock solid.

Did you predict that George HW Bush would destroy the credibility of conservatism when he broke his word not to raise taxes? 

I did. 


Did you predict that Militants in Iraq would immediately launch deadly and all out attacks against coalition forces after Paul Bremer announced that  Bathe party members could not longer work in government or military? 


I did.   


Did you  predict that Homosexuality would be normalized in culture and in the military way back in the 1980s?   


I did.   I also explained how it was going to happen.   (Media)   


Did you predict that Iran would get nuclear weapons if Obama got reelected?   


I did.   (And I think that one will come to pass.)   


Did you predict the rise of racism following the election of Obama? 


I did.   



I also predicted numerous and sundry events and consequences,  and now I will make a prediction about what will happen if Hillary Clinton gets her hands on Federal power.   


She turns the FBI and the IRS into her own personal Gestapo and orders them to attack her political enemies. (us)    She threatens people with prison if they don't cooperate in her illegalities,   and she carries through on the threat at first opportunity.     

[DiogenesLamp]

Now see, there you go again.  We can have a discussion on the merits of NPR, but probably not when you passively-aggressively accuse one poster of writing knee-jerk reactions to another poster's allegedly poorly-thought-out comment.   It just doesn't make you look good, and puts a damper on conversation.

I thought you were aware that the other poster was postulating that NPR was a major concern?   


I was thinking a well thought out response would look more like,   "Yes,  NPR is a problem,  but it is a little problem compared to mainstream media censoring opposing thought and controlling what the public is permitted to hear."   


Saying   Amen! Amen! Amen!   implies you fully agreed with his concerns that NPR was a big problem.   


Yes it is a problem,   but it is a little problem.    It doesn't even merit inclusion into the conversation.   


I thought your response should have reflected it's status in the triage of what we should be concerned about.   

[sneakypete]

While I don't like Trump or Hillary it doesn't mean I support the GOP either.  A pox on all of them.  At this point I'm voting against the media by voting for Trump.  Yes I hate to admit I will vote for the Turd Sandwich, but I'd love to watch the media outrage if he wins.  Plus I'll be sick to listen to them spin the Hillary win as America has 100% adopted Obama's view of America.

@Q-Clinton

You do make a couple of good points. Even I am considering voting for Donald Little Hands,just to piss off both the Dims and the alleged Republicans. It's rare to get a two-fer opportunity like that.

With any luck at all,people like McLunatic,JEB,and some of the Dim leadership people may just stroke out and make America a better place.

[Norm Lenhart]

Predicting cowards would behave like cowards is no great feat of mental prowess.   

Then why do you want lesser elected? Thats a hell of a catch 22 you built for yourself. On one hand you say we gotta forget principle and elect liberal GOP because they arent Democrats, then you call the people you yourself elected cowards.

So lets game this out. Why did you feel that cowards were the correct people to send to DC to do battle with the DNC machine?

Who is responsible for electing the cowards?

What possible logic led you to believe that setting do nothing/go along get along subservient yellowbacks was the path to victory and conservative governance?

I'm ALL ears on this one. Have at it.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

@Q-Clinton

You do make a couple of good points. Even I am considering voting for Donald Little Hands,just to piss off both the Dims and the alleged Republicans. It's rare to get a two-fer opportunity like that.

With any luck at all,people like McLunatic,JEB,and some of the Dim leadership people may just stroke out and make America a better place.

Wow! When was the last time you voted? I thought you were abstaining forever?

[sneakypete]

And on cue:


CNN cuts satellite feed as soon as WikiLeaks is mentioned by Congressman Collins



https://youtu.be/cbA5RE9eK08

@DiogenesLamp

I have told this story before,but I was in Moscow when the Russians were holding the 96 Presidential elections,and all I had read here in the US was about how the Communists were making a political comeback,and were destined to win and return the country to communism. Well,there I was in a hotel when the CP candidate was standing on the bed of a flatbed truck and giving a speech shortly before the election. CNN was being broadcast on a television in the hotel lobby at the same time,and I could even see the CNN reporter at the scene looking out from the hotel lobby,and see him on the tv screen at the same time. He was talking about how the Moscow Militia (city cops) and the Army were behind the CP candidate,and the Soviet Army during communist times had almost as much political power as the Politburo.

Anyhow,the CNN reporter was raving about how the Moscow Militia and a few senior Army officers standing on the bed of the truck and on the edges of the crowd PROVED how much support the communist had. Russians standing around in the lobby were practically snarling and growling at this. I asked them about this and they told me the reason the Moscow Militia and the Army police units were there was because the CP candidate had received so many death threats,and they were there to PROTECT him,not support him. Once I looked around it was obvious they were telling the truth because the militia were surrounding the stage and their brass and the Army brass were busy  keeping the protesters back. You couldn't see this on the camera angles in the lobby,though. If you were just looking at the tv you would be inclined to believe them.

When the speeches stopped and the parade began,the only organization I saw marching with the Communists were the Russian Orthodox Church people,and yes I know it was them because they actually have their own flag they fly,and there were a lot of priests and nuns marching under the banner. The commies had promised them that in return for their support they would ban all other religions from operating in Russia if they won.

I told the Russians in the lobby that if someone would give me a good belt-fed 30 caliber and a couple of ammo bearers that I could solve that little problem for them in just a few minutes,and they started smiling,laughing,and smacking me on the back and offering to buy me drinks.

So much for CNN truthfulness about the typical Russia being pro-communist and anti-American.

[sneakypete]

It means that most of the responses I see are knee jerk and reactionary rather than well thought out considerations of the subject matter.   

It takes me quite a long time to weigh certain ideas,  and if someone can respond in mere seconds,  it appears as if they haven't really given an idea it's due consideration. 


"In God’s name, I beg of you to think."

@DiogenesLamp

How can it be that it has never occurred to you that many/most of us have been thinking and commenting about these issues for decades now,and don't need a whole lot of time to think stuff over? You think this is our first election?

[DiogenesLamp]

It is the same problem. Merely smaller, yet one we have much more detail on since "unbiasing" (as well as defunding) have been attempted on NPR before. Didn't work there, so it's not going to work on a larger, profit funded media.

Now, your idea of a voter controlled "board" to oversee the media. You are relying on voters common sense and fairness here - NOT a terribly good idea, as the current shit show illustrates (pick a thread, any thread, for proof).

Consider the History Channel. Remember that channel's charter and it's first couple of years? Educational and interesting programs were it's reason for existing.

Are you sure that isn't a consequence of bundling?   (Artificial tampering with market forces.)    I suspect the market for history buffs was never all that great in the first place,  but was made to appear so due to forced bundling.   

The voters voted with their remotes - now it's pawn stars and storage wars. Fair enough if you like that sort of thing, but a far cry from it's original remit. The voters did that. No one else. The same people you expect to maintain balance in all broadcast media.

My suggestion was not so much to focus on the entertainment media as much as it was to force the News Media to provide equal access to conservative News anchors and stories rather than allowing a Liberal censor to suppress them as "not news worthy."   


Notice how much of the bad information coming out about Hillary is not getting discussed on the networks?   Or if it is,   notice  how little air time it receives as compared to stories the media pushes?   


Liberals do more damage by censoring information than they do by pushing stories,   but they do damage both ways. 


The media would cover very different stories if all the employees were conservative.   We wouldn't be focusing on "Michelle's dress",   we would be focusing on Hillary's lies, blunders and illegalities.