The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on October 18, 2016, 01:37:05 pm
-
Republicans rush to build firewall to save the House
A top conservative super PAC is dropping millions in districts once thought invincible for the GOP.
By Rachael Bade and Jake Sherman
10/17/16 07:58 PM EDT
Updated 10/17/16 08:34 PM EDT
The top House Republican super PAC had always planned to spend big to protect GOP lawmakers in Democratic-friendly districts. But Donald Trump’s free fall is forcing American Action Network and its sister PAC, Congressional Leadership Fund, to also shell out millions in red-leaning districts that weren’t even in play until this month.
Their suddenly urgent mission: Build a firewall to prevent a Democratic takeover of the House.
With Trump fending off allegations of sexual harassment and his tanking numbers threatening to pull down once-safe GOP lawmakers, this is what 2016 now looks like for the pair of related conservative outside groups: They're dropping $500,000 on TV ads in deep-red Utah to protect Rep. Mia Love, whose Mormon-heavy district has recoiled from Trump’s vulgar comments about women. They’re spending another $700,000 in Tucson, Arizona, to protect freshman Rep. Martha McSally, a retired Air Force colonel who has comfortably led her Democratic challenger all year. And they're working to shore up conservative-leaning districts in the Central Valley of California, western Colorado, upstate New York and Michigan.
more
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/house-republicans-firewall-election-229910
-
Things must be even more bleak than I thought if the GOP is worried about losing the majority in the House.
-
Nice. 25 years after they helped destroy it,they want to protect it.
Which,by extension,they want to protect the damage they have done to make sure no repairs are made.
Name ONE prominent Republican conservative that chairs a powerful committee.
-
GOP......
YANK EVERY $ FROM TRUMP ASAP!!!!!!
-
I'd just like to point out that had people listened to us awful 'purists' that said "elect principled people", the House and senate would be in no danger at all. Because the voters could trust the people they elected.
The fact that people CANNOT trust the people they elected is exactly the reason the House and Senate are in danger.
So myself and the other evil, vile, know it all, purist scum that were once again correct will be over to the side murmuring "we told you so'.
-
I'd just like to point out that had people listened to us awful 'purists' that said "elect principled people", the House and senate would be in no danger at all. Because the voters could trust the people they elected.
The fact that people CANNOT trust the people they elected is exactly the reason the House and Senate are in danger.
So myself and the other evil, vile, know it all, purist scum that were once again correct will be over to the side murmuring "we told you so'.
@Norm Lenhart
Copied and pasted verbatim because it needs to be read as a complete statement over and over until it sinks in.
-
RCP shows that even if the GOP lost every "in play" HoR seat, they'd still have control.
-
I'd just like to point out that had people listened to us awful 'purists' that said "elect principled people", the House and senate would be in no danger at all. Because the voters could trust the people they elected.
The fact that people CANNOT trust the people they elected is exactly the reason the House and Senate are in danger.
So myself and the other evil, vile, know it all, purist scum that were once again correct will be over to the side murmuring "we told you so'.
Well stated. I still can not believe such a big faction of the GOP got duped this badly. Hopefully lessons will have been learned.
-
RCP shows that even if the GOP lost every "in play" HoR seat, they'd still have control.
RCP and polling in general have been historically inaccurate predicting House races.
So don't fool yourself in thinking a Clinton landslide might not tilt the house blue.
-
Well stated. I still can not believe such a big faction of the GOP got duped this badly. Hopefully lessons will have been learned.
Not a chance in hell. They should have learned when McCain, then Romney threw their elections (I learned my lesson with McCain and the shame will never leave me). They will run Al Gore next time and call him a compromise candidate.
-
It's what, 3 weeks until the election? Plenty of time to pull it off.
:whistle:
-
I'd just like to point out that had people listened to us awful 'purists' that said "elect principled people", the House and senate would be in no danger at all. Because the voters could trust the people they elected.
The fact that people CANNOT trust the people they elected is exactly the reason the House and Senate are in danger.
So myself and the other evil, vile, know it all, purist scum that were once again correct will be over to the side murmuring "we told you so'.
Who's going to be murmuring? I'll be shouting it from the rooftops.
-
GOP......
YANK EVERY $ FROM TRUMP ASAP!!!!!!
:thumbsup:
-
Who's going to be murmuring? I'll be shouting it from the rooftops.
I figured it would be more smug if we murmured. Gotta keep up appearances of being egotistical self centered know it all purists you know!
-
Not a chance in hell. They should have learned when McCain, then Romney threw their elections (I learned my lesson with McCain and the shame will never leave me). They will run Al Gore next time and call him a compromise candidate.
@Norm Lenhart
Yup,and if Goober attends a few church meetings and gets declared at being religious,the so-called "conservatives" on the so-called "Religious Right" will stand in line to vote for him.
Too many people confuse Christianity with conservatism,and it's not. It's a form of socialism. Being a "conservative" in America doesn't mean the same thing as being a "conservative" in Europe or anywhere else in the world because OUR history is unique. We have NEVER had an official religion,and despite the best efforts of both the Catholic and the Protestant Churches,they have never even came close to dominating government in any more than a lip service fashion.
Now we have the Muslims attempting to dominate our government,and due to words not meaning anything anymore in a world were homosexuals,probably the most depressed group of Americans in existence are called "gay" and outright Marxist fascists are called "Liberals",who the hell knows what anything means anymore?
-
Things must be even more bleak than I thought if the GOP is worried about losing the majority in the House.
You deliberately pick a fight with 75% of your base and yeah, you stand a good chance of losing your seats in the House.
-
You deliberately pick a fight with 75% of your base and yeah, you stand a good chance of losing your seats in the House.
Huh? Trumps base ain't 75% of the GOP.
-
You deliberately pick a fight with 75% of your base and yeah, you stand a good chance of losing your seats in the House.
:silly: Idiot response. They're distancing themselves from the idiot candidate that idiots like YOU put there.
-
I'd just like to point out that had people listened to us awful 'purists' that said "elect principled people", the House and senate would be in no danger at all. Because the voters could trust the people they elected.
Norm, every crackpot believes things would be great if people would just listen to him. They squeal with glee at every perceived setback for those who did not listen to them, and they cheer for the destruction of those who did not listen to them.
You and your cadre of like minded folk remind me of the attitude of the prophet Jonah. (http://biblehub.com/kjv/jonah/3.htm)
And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.
...
And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
So Jonah went out of the city, and sat on the east side of the city, and there made him a booth, and sat under it in the shadow, till he might see what would become of the city.
....
Therefore now, O LORD, take, I beseech thee, my life from me; for it is better for me to die than to live. 4Then said the LORD, Doest thou well to be angry?
Doest thou well to be angry?
-
Huh? Trumps base ain't 75% of the GOP.
It is now. It wasn't earlier, but it is now. It's probably more than that now. It might even be 90% at this point.
-
:silly: Idiot response. They're distancing themselves from the idiot candidate that idiots like YOU put there.
Voting for Cruz caused Trump to win? How does that work, or do you want to rethink which one of us has made an "idiot response."
-
It is now. It wasn't earlier, but it is now. It's probably more than that now. It might even be 90% at this point.
No, not even close.
-
No, not even close.
So how much support does he currently have with the Republican base? How about you put out a number so we can see if you have any awareness of the real world, or whether you are locked in an echo chamber of your own mind.
-
It is now. It wasn't earlier, but it is now. It's probably more than that now. It might even be 90% at this point.
90% of a decimated start number? How many people left the party over Trump? Before even? You could have 100% and still not be close to the numbers you need to win.
-
So how much support does he currently have with the Republican base? How about you put out a number so we can see if you have any awareness of the real world, or whether you are locked in an echo chamber of your own mind.
Haha, the violence promoting loony toons kook known as Diogenes Lamp thinks I live in an echo chamber?
Look at Trump's poll numbers... going down, down, down.
-
I'd just like to point out that had people listened to us awful 'purists' that said "elect principled people"...
Sorry, but since there aren't enough conservative votes for that to be principled conservatives, if purists had been listened to, we'd have a house totally composed of Democrats who are firm in their own principles.
I know you'd be fine with that, as it would mean not voting for a less-than-pure Republican, but it's the reality we'd have.
-
90% of a decimated start number? How many people left the party over Trump? Before even? You could have 100% and still not be close to the numbers you need to win.
You have never been able to win with 100% of the base. You have always had to get a large chunk of the independents to win.
-
Haha, the violence promoting loony toons kook known as Diogenes Lamp thinks I live in an echo chamber?
Look at Trump's poll numbers... going down, down, down.
Really? http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
-
Oh, and here's another one.
http://www.vendingtimes.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=EB79A487112B48A296B38C81345C8C7F&nm=Vending+Features&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=CDC99DCC8425470B84FB9A46E1CA72F8
-
Outliers. Trump is losing by nearly every statistic available.
-
Outliers. Trump is losing by nearly every statistic available.
lol... ya, but you are forgetting the 'system' is rigged! 22222frying pan
-
So how much support does he currently have with the Republican base? How about you put out a number so we can see if you have any awareness of the real world, or whether you are locked in an echo chamber of your own mind.
Says the guy who posts at the biggest echo chamber of all, FR. Down there, no dissent is allowed. Just like Hell.
-
Sorry, but since there aren't enough conservative votes for that to be principled conservatives, if purists had been listened to, we'd have a house totally composed of Democrats who are firm in their own principles.
I know you'd be fine with that, as it would mean not voting for a less-than-pure Republican, but it's the reality we'd have.
I just looked at the ballot. Guess what I saw? A spot to write in. Thats the reality on my ballot.
Problem solved. There is no excuse.
-
GOP......
YANK EVERY $ FROM TRUMP ASAP!!!!!!
And please please please cancel his Twitter account.
-
Somebody needs to tell Trump that the House needs to be saved - because he is in full "attack the house" mode right now, and so are his supporters.
-
Somebody needs to tell Trump that the House needs to be saved - because he is in full "attack the house" mode right now, and so are his supporters.
Trump hates Paul Ryan, and so do his supporters.
-
Sorry, but since there aren't enough conservative votes for that to be principled conservatives, if purists had been listened to, we'd have a house totally composed of Democrats who are firm in their own principles.
I know you'd be fine with that, as it would mean not voting for a less-than-pure Republican, but it's the reality we'd have.
@Suppressed
I'm calling BullBush on that one. Remember when actual unashamed conservatives ran for Congress and took control of it for the 1st time in 40 years? Actual conservatives ran on "Small Government" tickets,and won with historic numbers. Some people were even claiming it was the end of the Dim Party. This proves that "if you build it (a actual small government platform) they WILL come."
Then the Country Club Republicans joined forces with their Dim brothers and started talking some of them into switching party labels but not party values,and infiltrating the conservative movement to destroy it from within. And ALL the fools on Fool Republic were hailing all these "New Republicans that were old Dims who have seen the light and found their way as new members of the Republican Party! Sis! Boom! Bah!" Never once occurred to those loons they were being infiltrated and betrayed. Probably still hasn't to most of them because the typical FR poster is as thick as a brick.
The Dim Party has also been VERY successful with convincing the ignorant public that being a conservative" means you are a small-minded viscous Bible-Thumper that wants to outlaw sex,tv,dancing,and anything else that people enjoy,and to bring back Taliban-like tactics to punish people who don't obey. Hell,a lot of the people that were describing themselves as conservatives actually believed that themselves.
When Newt and allies organized the Republican Revolution of 1994 they were successful because they focused on small government and individual freedoms,not punishing non-believers. Believers still had the right (with conservatives in charge a GUARANTEED right to believe) to follow their faiths,so most of them fell into line,also.
Then the mass part changing and betrayals began.
-
I just looked at the ballot. Guess what I saw? A spot to write in. Thats the reality on my ballot.
Problem solved. There is no excuse.
Agreed. It could have been done, and there would have been a lot more Dems in office.
-
Agreed. It could have been done, and there would have been a lot more Dems in office.
Considering Barry got all his big issues I fail to see where that would have resulted in a difference.
The result of those liberal Rs is a 20T debt, unprosecuted officials, abandonment of marriage, Pen and phone legislation with zero penalty... We all bitched about it all through the last 2 years. It happened. Some of us warned about it and called it 100%. They caved across the board.
So beginning the process by voting write in for someone worth it would have set the precedent. This time would be easier. Next time a third party might be a real threat to win. But no. People refused. They refused over and over. And here we are with no hope and no recourse. Because no one would stand on principle and say 'no more'. Everyone wants magic bullets and instawins guaranteed. Not gonna happen. We have to take some pain now for gain later. Thats the way it is. Or we should all shut up, pop in a DVD and get drunk.
We got a couple bones to chew on. The liberals got the meat locker.
-
@Suppressed
I'm calling BullBush on that one. Remember when actual unashamed conservatives ran for Congress and took control of it for the 1st time in 40 years? Actual conservatives ran on "Small Government" tickets,and won with historic numbers.
Yeah, I was part of it. Since then about 20 million old school people have died and been replaced by "millenials" who are simply ignorant and stupid.
In 1994, there was still enough of the old school generation which valued ethics, morality and sound fiscal policy. Again, many of them have been replaced by amoral idiots.
We won't get back that sort of citizen until we fix the education system and fix the media system where ethics and morality are once again valued nationally.
-
I just looked at the ballot. Guess what I saw? A spot to write in. Thats the reality on my ballot.
Problem solved. There is no excuse.
There is also a spot for a write in on my ballot as well. However, it depends on the rules in your state (access ballotpedia). In Florida for example, unless the candidate that you write in has qualified/registered as a write in candidate, your vote will NOT count.
-
We won't get back that sort of citizen until we fix the education system and fix the media system where ethics and morality are once again valued nationally.
How do you propose to fix either one when it is the liberals that dominate the education system and control the media?
-
Yeah, I was part of it. Since then about 20 million old school people have died <<
@DiogenesLamp
Sad,but at least party true. No one knows the exact numbers,but I think we would all agree the sum would equal "too many".
>>and been replaced by "millenials" who are simply ignorant and stupid.<<
Yeah,another "Sad but true" factoid. This is partially our fault for not taking the time to educate the upcoming generations. I am NOT speaking about you or I specifically,but about people of our age group in general.
>>In 1994, there was still enough of the old school generation which valued ethics, morality and sound fiscal policy. Again, many of them have been replaced by amoral idiots. <<
Once again,those of us in the Geezer Generation share a part of the blame for that. We had vague memories of how things were SUPPOSED to be when we were growing up,and that gave us an advantage when things started to go seriously wrong. The under-40 generation of today didn't and don't have that advantage,so it is up to use to explain things to them. If not us,WHO?
>>We won't get back that sort of citizen until we fix the education system and fix the media system where ethics and morality are once again valued nationally. <<
I'm with ya on that one,but a wise man once said,"The longest trip started with the first step". That still applies today,and we need to be taking those steps daily,at every opportunity. I have found that one helpful way to start is to point out how their teachers and the history books have lied to them,and give them just enough information to get them to look it up for themselves so they can "prove me wrong". NOBODY of any age likes being lied to by those he or she trusted,so IMHO that is one of the best methods to use.
-
How do you propose to fix either one when it is the liberals that dominate the education system and control the media?
That is a question that requires a very long answer. The simple version is attack the existing media. Attack it with criminal prosecutions, with legal fines, lawsuits, boycotts, competition and any other method that will cut it's financial throat. We have to destroy it or it will destroy us.
There is an old saying: "Politics is downstream of culture." Well guess who's been steering the culture for the last 50 years?
New York (News) and Los Angeles (Entertainment) with a smattering of a few other places thrown in.
Once you get equal representation for conservatives in the media, then we can work to elect people who will do something about the Education system.
-
How do you propose to fix either one when it is the liberals that dominate the education system and control the media?
@libertybele
You do it by injecting yourself into the conversations of younger people you don't know when you hear them quoting something you know to be wrong when you hear them talking to each other in public places. For example,when they talk about how evil the white man was to enslave the blacks,tell them that it was the Africans that first enslaved the blacks brought to North and South America,and the first actual slave owner in the Original 13 Colonies was a black man named Johnson that lived in Jamestown and took his indentured servant to court to claim the right to hold him as a slave. Johnson had came here himself as an indentured servant who received a land grant to grow tobacco after working off his debt,and imported the indentured servant he later enslaved.
Then throw in another tidbit about how "Lincoln freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation" is a total lie because the ONLY slaves it "freed" were the ones living in the south that were not under the dominion of the American government at that time. Lincoln didn't free a single slave,and wrote in his diaries that he would be content to leave slavery in place if it would keep the country from separating. Their jaws will drop and they won't believe you,but all you have to do this days is tell them to do web searches using "Johnson+slavery+Jamestow" and "The Emancipation Proclamation" as the keywords.
The best education people ever receive is the one they teach themselves from researching the history of issues.
All it takes to open minds is to remove just a few bricks from the wall of indoctrination.
-
Yeah,another "Sad but true" factoid. This is partially our fault for not taking the time to educate the upcoming generations. I am NOT speaking about you or I specifically,but about people of our age group in general.
I would like to speak to this point. I do not think the problem is that simple. I think the 20th century was hit with events and circumstances that are unusual in the history of man. We did not respond to them properly because we did not know how to respond to them properly, or even realize that certain events were actual threats to our future.
We were never going to be able to fight the propaganda from Television. Once it took hold, it produced a steady decline in culture by promulgating a steady stream of fantasy and propaganda disguised as news and entertainment. It normalized degeneracy and kept people from doing more wholesome things with their families.
There were other factors as well. The Unionization of government Employees had far reaching and devastating consequences for the nation. The Passage of the 24th amendment separated the cost of government from the control of government. It also created the subsequent crime wave that hit the nation around 1978.
A lot of the disasters we currently face had their roots in what were regarded as innocuous events and policies at the time they occurred.
The 19th amendment got FDR elected. He and Truman appointed two decades worth of liberal crackpot judges to the Federal Bench, which then proceeded to wreck the structure of society.
The schools do not teach properly because they are not permitted to teach properly, and now people don't even remember what "properly" felt like.
We are being propelled by events which are mostly out of our control and we are lucky if we can steer even a little bit.
-
We are being propelled by events which are mostly out of our control and we are lucky if we can steer even a little bit.
@DiogenesLamp
Yeah,but regardless of how steep that hill is to climb,we MUST try to climb it. None of us can afford to just sit back and home the problem self-corrects because that ain't gonna happen.
If we each as individuals do our best to bring about change by education and still fail,at least we can console ourselves with the knowledge that we tried.
-
That is a question that requires a very long answer. The simple version is attack the existing media. Attack it with criminal prosecutions, with legal fines, lawsuits, boycotts, competition and any other method that will cut it's financial throat. We have to destroy it or it will destroy us.
There is an old saying: "Politics is downstream of culture." Well guess who's been steering the culture for the last 50 years?
New York (News) and Los Angeles (Entertainment) with a smattering of a few other places thrown in.
Once you get equal representation for conservatives in the media, then we can work to elect people who will do something about the Education system.
The reality of the matter is this; we have elected RINO's who side with the DEMS. Common Core (liberal brainwashing) is now the foundation of our educational system and liberals own (literally) the MSM ... so I don't see things changing anytime soon.
-
@sneakypete , @libertybele , @DiogenesLamp
Great discussion.
There's one other factor that us older types tend to overlook - the globally connected world and the ability and tendency of all of us to stay with what we feel comfortable with. There are fewer and fewer opportunities to interact with people who have different beliefs and values. And, most of us tend to shy away from things we don't like.
I remember sometime back reading about one of those cannibal cases - I think it was some German who was looking for and found someone willing to be the cannibalized. The article revealed that there were places online where people of that bent could go to find like-minded individuals. Good God! Before our successful de-Babelization of the world, someone who thought like that would probably never get beyond a few sick thoughts about it. They would probably never meet anyone who thought like they did and encouraged them to explore their sickness. Now, every little niche and narcissistic impulse can be affirmed on the internet. Heck, one can find people sicker and more warped than you ever imagined possible!
I don't know how you break through that. TV used to be 3 channels and maybe the local channel. Pretty easy to get a particular piece of information or disinformation out there.
-
The reality of the matter is this; we have elected RINO's who side with the DEMS.
Because the New York Elite controlled media will crucify them if they make too much trouble. Remember 1994 and 1995?
Remember the "Gingrich that stole Christmas" Propaganda war?
(http://www.mikecornelison.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/how-the-gingrich-stole-christmas.jpg)
(http://www.cartoonaday.com/images/cartoons/2011/12/how-the-gingrich-stole-christmas-390x220.jpg)
Remember the lies the media told about why they were balancing the budget? Remember how they blamed the Congressional Republicans in 1995 for shutting down the government when Clinton vetoed the Budget Bill, and remember how they blamed Ronald Reagan for shutting down the government when Tip O'Neill sent him a bloated budget bill?
The Republicans in congress during the Clinton years were maligned and socially ostracized, and the lesson they learned is to never challenge the powers that spend the money and control the media. They have been pathetic cowards ever since.
The media gelded them.
Common Core (liberal brainwashing) is now the foundation of our educational system and liberals own (literally) the MSM ... so I don't see things changing anytime soon.
And I believe the media is Liberal precisely because the Elite and Powerful "Upper classes" of the Boston/Washington DC corridor want the government to continue spending excessive amounts of money, from which their own wealth is derived.
The media is their tool to keep the money spigot in Washington D.C. flowing other people's tax money and borrowed debt into the pockets of that "Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Cornell, etc. " elite class of wealthy movers and shakers who live between Washington and Boston.
-
I'd just like to point out that had people listened to us awful 'purists' that said "elect principled people", the House and senate would be in no danger at all. Because the voters could trust the people they elected.
The fact that people CANNOT trust the people they elected is exactly the reason the House and Senate are in danger.
So myself and the other evil, vile, know it all, purist scum that were once again correct will be over to the side murmuring "we told you so'.
:thumbsup:
-
Because the New York Elite controlled media will crucify them if they make too much trouble. Remember 1994 and 1995?
Remember the "Gingrich that stole Christmas" Propaganda war?
(http://www.mikecornelison.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/how-the-gingrich-stole-christmas.jpg)
(http://www.cartoonaday.com/images/cartoons/2011/12/how-the-gingrich-stole-christmas-390x220.jpg)
Remember the lies the media told about why they were balancing the budget? Remember how they blamed the Congressional Republicans in 1995 for shutting down the government when Clinton vetoed the Budget Bill, and remember how they blamed Ronald Reagan for shutting down the government when Tip O'Neill sent him a bloated budget bill?
The Republicans in congress during the Clinton years were maligned and socially ostracized, and the lesson they learned is to never challenge the powers that spend the money and control the media. They have been pathetic cowards ever since.
The media gelded them.
And I believe the media is Liberal precisely because the Elite and Powerful "Upper classes" of the Boston/Washington DC corridor want the government to continue spending excessive amounts of money, from which their own wealth is derived.
The media is their tool to keep the money spigot in Washington D.C. flowing other people's tax money and borrowed debt into the pockets of that "Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Cornell, etc. " elite class of wealthy movers and shakers who live between Washington and Boston.
:amen: :amen: :amen:
-
@sneakypete , @libertybele , @DiogenesLamp
Great discussion.
There's one other factor that us older types tend to overlook - the globally connected world and the ability and tendency of all of us to stay with what we feel comfortable with. There are fewer and fewer opportunities to interact with people who have different beliefs and values. And, most of us tend to shy away from things we don't like.
I remember sometime back reading about one of those cannibal cases - I think it was some German who was looking for and found someone willing to be the cannibalized. The article revealed that there were places online where people of that bent could go to find like-minded individuals. Good God! Before our successful de-Babelization of the world, someone who thought like that would probably never get beyond a few sick thoughts about it. They would probably never meet anyone who thought like they did and encouraged them to explore their sickness. Now, every little niche and narcissistic impulse can be affirmed on the internet. Heck, one can find people sicker and more warped than you ever imagined possible!
I don't know how you break through that. TV used to be 3 channels and maybe the local channel. Pretty easy to get a particular piece of information or disinformation out there.
You are making a point that I attempt to make when I discuss the influence of Television and mass communications. It spreads decadence and sickness in numerous and sundry ways.
I recall reading that when Thomas Edison invented movies, he thought they would be used for wonderful and educational purposes. They quickly turned to the sleazy decadence of the "Roaring 20s." When Philo Farnsworth invented Television, he too thought it would be a great and wonderful educational device. It took a little longer, but it eventually became "That vast Wasteland" that Newton Minow called it in the 1960s.
The sickness of big city depravity soon became spread all across the nation and eventually all across the Western world. We could watch dystopia every evening on the television screen, and because people could see it every day, they eventually regarded the abnormal as normal.
Even if Television (and now Computer screens) were not completely under Liberal control, I think over time they would eventually become so, because a form of instant gratification is inherent in their usage.
To many people, television is more interesting than real life, and as a result it steals real life from people.
This is part of what we have to fight. Also, fake lives on television affect real opinions in reality. People literally emulate the nonsense they see on television.
-
You are making a point that I attempt to make when I discuss the influence of Television and mass communications. It spreads decadence and sickness in numerous and sundry ways.
I recall reading that when Thomas Edison invented movies, he thought they would be used for wonderful and educational purposes. They quickly turned to the sleazy decadence of the "Roaring 20s." When Philo Farnsworth invented Television, he too thought it would be a great and wonderful educational device. It took a little longer, but it eventually became "That vast Wasteland" that Newton Minow called it in the 1960s.
The sickness of big city depravity soon became spread all across the nation and eventually all across the Western world. We could watch dystopia every evening on the television screen, and because people could see it every day, they eventually regarded the abnormal as normal.
Even if Television (and now Computer screens) were not completely under Liberal control, I think over time they would eventually become so, because a form of instant gratification is inherent in their usage.
To many people, television is more interesting than real life, and as a result it steals real life from people.
This is part of what we have to fight. Also, fake lives on television affect real opinions in reality. People literally emulate the nonsense they see on television.
@DiogenesLamp
Let's be clear,here. Are you calling for official censorship over the media by the government?
-
@DiogenesLamp
Let's be clear,here. Are you calling for official censorship over the media by the government?
That is what we effectively have now. Regarding television, I don't know of any way to put that genie back in the bottle.
The only suggestion I have offered is to amend the constitution to create a board of governors elected by the people to control the staffing of national networks.
I figure if most of the nation votes Republican, then most of the elected Governors will be Republican, and the one party control of the media system will be broken.
It's hard to force a Liberal bias on a network that employs half or more conservatives.
A lot of people strenuously objected to that Idea, and I've asked for other ideas, but most people simply refuse to concede that one party control of the media is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with.
It is. One way or the other we need to get a voice of at least equal status on the Information delivery systems of this nation. 96% Liberal is killing us.
-
@DiogenesLamp
Let's be clear,here. Are you calling for official censorship over the media by the government?
government control would make it worse
-
The only suggestion I have offered is to amend the constitution to create a board of governors elected by the people to control the staffing of national networks.
Simply insane
-
government control would make it worse
@DiogenesLamp has a thing for this. I've asked the same thing as @sneakypete and gotten the same response.
Your response to it was the same as mine.
And he finds that insane.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,229007.msg1089544.html#msg1089544
(and following posts)
-
That is what we effectively have now. Regarding television, I don't know of any way to put that genie back in the bottle.
The only suggestion I have offered is to amend the constitution to create a board of governors elected by the people to control the staffing of national networks.
I figure if most of the nation votes Republican, then most of the elected Governors will be Republican, and the one party control of the media system will be broken.
It's hard to force a Liberal bias on a network that employs half or more conservatives.
A lot of people strenuously objected to that Idea, and I've asked for other ideas, but most people simply refuse to concede that one party control of the media is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with.
It is. One way or the other we need to get a voice of at least equal status on the Information delivery systems of this nation. 96% Liberal is killing us.
We have that with the BBC. It doesn't work terribly well. :shrug:
The vast majority of media workers are left leaning. Even in an ostensibly impartial media organisation (and, to be fair, the BBC does try) those biases come through in a lot of subtle ways.
-
One way or the other we need to get a voice of at least equal status on the Information delivery systems of this nation. 96% Liberal is killing us.
And even worse, 100% of the POTUS candidates are liberal
-
government control would make it worse
-
What we have now is control by the party of government. What we have now is exactly what you claim would be "worse."
-
Simply insane
It is insane to let the information delivery systems operate with 96% Liberal Democrats. *THAT* is what is insane.
-
We have that with the BBC. It doesn't work terribly well. :shrug:
The vast majority of media workers are left leaning. Even in an ostensibly impartial media organisation (and, to be fair, the BBC does try) those biases come through in a lot of subtle ways.
The BBC has a board of governors elected by the people? Wikipedia says they are appointed, and that won't work because it won't represent the demographics of the people at large.
They have no fear of losing their positions, and therefore no incentive to buck the existing system, which badly needs to be bucked.
-
The BBC has a board of governors elected by the people? Wikipedia says they are appointed, and that won't work because it won't represent the demographics of the people at large.
They have no fear of losing their positions, and therefore no incentive to buck the existing system, which badly needs to be bucked.
They are appointed by parliament.
-
And even worse, 100% of the POTUS candidates are liberal
You are putting the cart before the horse. The reason the candidates are Liberal is because the media skews coverage to support liberalism.
Over the years the media has moved the "Overton Window" where policies and ideologies which were once considered insane are now "mainstream."
-
It is insane to let the information delivery systems operate with 96% Liberal Democrats. *THAT* is what is insane.
Yep. Just what we need. Even more government control. Empower even more liberal bureaucrats with the authority to dictate what we can say or do. That ought to do the trick.
The obvious solution here is to grow some balls and defund NPR for starters.
-
Yep. Just what we need. Even more government control. Empower even more liberal bureaucrats with the authority to dictate what we can say or do. That ought to do the trick.
The obvious solution here is to grow some balls and defund NPR for starters.
How do you plan to defund NPR, particularly in the face of a near-certain veto by President Clinton?
-
How do you plan to defund NPR, particularly in the face of a near-certain veto by President Clinton?
Simple. You omit funding from any spending bill. Same with Planned Parenthood. These things only get funded because Republicans vote in favor of funding.
If Hillary wants to veto the budget, then let her. After two weeks, people will realize that it doesn't matter.
-
Simple. You omit funding from any spending bill. Same with Planned Parenthood. These things only get funded because Republicans vote in favor of funding.
If Hillary wants to veto the budget, then let her. After two weeks, people will realize that it doesn't matter.
Yeah, that defunding thing worked real well the last time around. It ain't gonna happen because President Clinton will do exactly what Obama did: ostentatiously close down the parks and everything else where the average Jane or Joe interacts with the government, and will blame it on the GOP. You really have a political death wish, don't you?
This might have had a chance of happening if the next president were a republican, but the Trumpists pretty much screwed that to a fair-thee-well. You'll just have to wait at least 4 more years and hope the Trumpists aren't allowed to vote in primaries next time.
-
Yeah, that defunding thing worked real well the last time around. It ain't gonna happen because President Clinton will do exactly what Obama did: ostentatiously close down the parks and everything else where the average Jane or Joe interacts with the government, and will blame it on the GOP. You really have a political death wish, don't you?
This might have had a chance of happening if the next president were a republican, but the Trumpists pretty much screwed that to a fair-thee-well. You'll just have to wait at least 4 more years and hope the Trumpists aren't allowed to vote in primaries next time.
Let her do that! Let's just see what REALLY happens rather than spouting leftist propaganda!
-
Yeah, that defunding thing worked real well the last time around. It ain't gonna happen because President Clinton will do exactly what Obama did: ostentatiously close down the parks and everything else where the average Jane or Joe interacts with the government, and will blame it on the GOP. You really have a political death wish, don't you?
What defunding thing? Republicans, forever stuck in their Beltway mentality, capitulated as always, totally oblivious to the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans have grown cynical and don't care.
Political death wish? Republicans maintained control of both houses of Congress in the aftermath.
The people want leaders with balls. Obama showed some. The Republican Congress didn't. If Republicans ever decided to show some, we could end the current slavery state.
Defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood is a win-win for Conservatives. It forces Democrats to expend political capital to defend programs that are unpopular with a majority of Americans. And the shutdown will showcase that the 'sky-is-falling' message the Democrats have been feeding us for decades is all BS.
-
That is what we effectively have now. <<
>> Regarding television, I don't know of any way to put that genie back in the bottle. <<
Entertainment shows are entertainment,so we,the people,control that by boycotts. If we can't be bothered to do that,we deserve what we get.
Beyond that I am tired of hearing people whine about how their children are being taught false history and to accept Globalist/communist fascism as the wave of the future. They are YOUR damn kids,so the primary responsibility for informing them of truths is YOUR responsibility. If you can't be bothered to educate your own children,I don't want to hear you whining about how some group of multi-billionaires is influencing them and their opinions. THIS is the conservative approach. It's called accepting responsibility for your own actions and the actions and thoughts of your minor children.
>>The only suggestion I have offered is to amend the constitution to create a board of governors elected by the people to control the staffing of national networks. <<
Oh,yeah! Every other board created by our political masters is failing at everything BUT destroying America,but THIS one is going to be different,huh? The government are NOT our daddies and mommies,and they are NOT our children's babysitters. Ruling by appointed and even elected committee IS the heart and soul of fascism.
ANYTIME ANYONE comes up with a suggestion that requires amending the US Constitution they are on the wrong track for solutions,and need to come up with new suggestions.
Besides,it's not like our government pays any attention to Constitutional limitations on government power NOW,so why would they do so for future amendments the ruling class doesn't like?
What we need is MORE allegiance to the Constitution,not more amendments that allows government to ignore limits to their authority.
>>I figure if most of the nation votes Republican, then most of the elected Governors will be Republican, and the one party control of the media system will be broken. <<
Uhhhh.....,uhhh......h,uhhhhhh.......
Yeah,if only we had more Bushes and McLunatics in the WH,the Senate,and in Congress,huh?
>>It's hard to force a Liberal bias on a network that employs half or more conservatives. <<
I don't want to burst your bubble,but teebee and radio networks,blogs,and print media AIN'T government organizations.
>>A lot of people strenuously objected to that Idea, and I've asked for other ideas, but most people simply refuse to concede that one party control of the media is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with. <<
First of all,you have the cart before the horse. The government doesn't control the media. The media is owned and controlled by the people that are now in control of the government. Giving the government even MORE power and the legal responsibility to ignore the Constitution is NOT the way to go about fixing that problem.
Your suggestion is akin to shooting yourself in the head to counter a drug overdose. Nothing more than a fast lane to a destination you don't want to arrive at.
>>It is. One way or the other we need to get a voice of at least equal status on the Information delivery systems of this nation. 96% Liberal is killing us. <<
Creating a People's Police State is NOT an effective counter to a Fascist Police State. Either way the people end up living in a police state. The ONLY effective way to prevent America from becoming a police state is to allow NO amendments to the Constitution and for we,the people,to DEMAND that our EMPLOYEES that we elect to office do all their governing on a Constitutional basis. One WITHOUT amendments.
-
government control would make it worse
@geronl
:amen: :amen: :amen:
If anything it would grant official approval over the corruption and illegalities.
-
Simply insane
@geronl
Government by committee. Why not? Look at how well that worked for the Soviets!
-
-
What we have now is control by the party of government. What we have now is exactly what you claim would be "worse."
@DiogenesLamp
What you are suggesting is "more of the same with Supreme Court approval",which could only result in more of what you are upset about.
How is it that you can not see something this obvious?
-
Yep. Just what we need. Even more government control. Empower even more liberal bureaucrats with the authority to dictate what we can say or do. That ought to do the trick.<<
@Hoodat
BINGO!
>>The obvious solution here is to grow some balls<<
WOW! WADDA CONCEPT!
>>and defund NPR for starters.<<
Here is where I disagree. NPR is an OUTSTANDING idea. Where it falls apart is in the execution because WE,THE PEOPLE,have allowed the Board of Governors to turn it into an agenda-driven political organization instead of a public interest organization. Remove the politics and the agenda from it and make it about informing and educating the public and it was and is an excellent idea.
When it was first formed the American public had very little access to unbiased news related to anything other than the remote little areas they happened to live in. America then was a nation of radio and newspapers for information,and almost all the information most Americans received from those sources back then was VERY regional and dedicated to weather and crops because the America of that day was a rural nation.
BTW,it was the commie Roosevelt's that corrupted NPR.
Then came the 60's and America was less rural,more metropolitan,and we were even concerned with and getting furrin news about furrin places. And NPR got even worse because if there is a Holy Grail of communism fascism,it is control over all information outlets.
Then came the 80's and the internet,and apple carts started being upset on a daily basis,and the left started losing control over what information was being fed to white voters. Due to this,the DNC started taking a sudden interest in owning blacks and other minorities again,so they pretty much funded all the anti-American values sitcoms and other shows on tv in order to recruit empty young minds for indoctrination.
Which is why NPR could be a powerful force for Truth,Justice,Freedom,and the American Way of Life today if we,the people,suddenly started holding the Board of Governors heels to the fire and made them eliminate the globalist biases that drive it today. After all,what better way to change the mind and opinions of a target audience than to shift the focus of one of the primary news sites where the young and politically orientated get much of their opinions from?
Don't forget,most of these young people are NOT bad people and they are NOT globalists. They are just parroting that nonsense because it is the ONLY POV they have ever heard described as being correct as well as intellectual.
If we don't take the tools away from them that we are paying for and use those very same tools against them,then we are fools that need to lose.
-
Defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood is a win-win for Conservatives.<<
@Hoodat
BullBush! NPR ain't the big deal it used to be in the rural America of the 30's and 40's,but defunding a souce we could use to reach a segment of the population that considers themselves to be the young intellectuals is a foolish idea. You NEVER win by playing defense because YOU are always responding to actions and words by your enemy. If you want to win,you MUST take the battle to your enemy and you MUST go on the offensive and make THEM sound defensive and desperate.
As for Planned Parenthood,the ONLY people in America that consider PP to be a enemy today are the tiny fringe that identify themselves as fundie Christians. YOU might THINK you are a large group that represents the typical America because everybody in your family and your church agree with you,but you are nothing but a tiny fringe element most people laugh at.
I just wish there were some way those of us who are sane could piss you fundies off enough to make you desert the Republican Party for good because you scare more conservative-leaning voters away from the Republican Party and into the Dim Party than you draw. There are a lot of people who register and vote Dim because they are justifiably terrified of Rabid Religious loons taking control over America and ruling as an American Christian Taliban.
You rant and rave about late term abortion,but the truth is you are opposed to birth control and if it were in your power it would be illegal to buy or use contraceptives,and you would insist that a mother die in childbirth than have an abortion. You know this but won't admit it,and everybody knows you know this. The truth is you BELONG in the Dim Party because you want the government to enforce your religious viewpoints using the force of law and the courts just like the globalists want to use the government to enforce their "religious" viewpoints.
-
It is now. It wasn't earlier, but it is now. It's probably more than that now. It might even be 90% at this point.
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."
-
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."
@ScottinVA, I find that number remarkably high. Do you have a few links? I'd like to read more.
-
Yep. Just what we need. Even more government control. Empower even more liberal bureaucrats with the authority to dictate what we can say or do. That ought to do the trick.
God! I feel like I am communicating with children. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE NOW!
To those of us paying attention, the inbred relationship between the existing media system and the Democrat party is clear. The media and the Democrats are family. They are literally blood relations, and where they are not blood relations they are MARRIED relations.
Here is a small sampling of the problem. It is far worse than is illustrated by just these three people.
(http://www.truthorfiction.com/images/WHITE-HOUSE-MEDIA1.jpg)
80% of all bureaucrats are Democrat Union members. *THEY* ALREADY CONTROL THE MEDIA.
The obvious solution here is to grow some balls and defund NPR for starters.
Because NPR reaches 100 million people every week. Yeah, that will do the trick!
It boggles the mind that we believe representative Democracy is a viable system for controlling government power, but when the exact same methodology is proposed to fix what is currently wrong with the media system, everyone (really low information people) designate it "Government Control!"
They don't even ponder it. they just immediately out with their instant analysis. My God! They must be the smartest people in the world! What takes me hours and hours of thinking and careful consideration, they have figured out in 2.3 seconds!
And with no information needed to boot!
-
How do you plan to defund NPR, particularly in the face of a near-certain veto by President Clinton?
They couldn't even do it when Bush was president and both houses of Congress were controlled by Republicans.
That should have been a clue for us that our side was stabbing us in the back.
-
They couldn't even do it when Bush was president and both houses of Congress were controlled by Republicans.
That should have been a clue for us that our side was stabbing us in the back.
It's true. As sad as the "Trump era" is for the GOP, the 2002 - 2007 was hardly any better. That was when real change was possible, but not taken. And the BUsh presidency was an epic disaster.
-
It's true. As sad as the "Trump era" is for the GOP, the 2002 - 2007 was hardly any better. That was when real change was possible, but not taken. And the BUsh presidency was an epic disaster.
The George "H" Bush presidency was a disaster in that it was he who drafted NAFTA and Billy Bob signed it into law and yet another Bush was voted in later; however Kerry was definitely the greater evil. IMHO the first four years of "W"'s presidency was good in comparison to his last 4 years when we lost control of our majority in Congress. The Obama years have of course been a nightmare and to think that our choices are now of either another Clinton or Trump makes the Bush years look pretty darn good!
-
Oh,yeah! Every other board created by our political masters is failing at everything BUT destroying America,but THIS one is going to be different,huh?
People just gloss right over that "elected by the people" thing. It does not even seem to register with them that what I was proposing is answerable to the voters, not "Our Political masters."
ANYTIME ANYONE comes up with a suggestion that requires amending the US Constitution they are on the wrong track for solutions,and need to come up with new suggestions.
Because everything worked out so well by following the original framework.
It's only been amended 27 times, and most of those amendments were mistakes. Without some of those mistakes we would not now be worrying about the threat that one party control of the media poses to the survival of the nation.
I don't want to burst your bubble,but teebee ... and print media AIN'T government organizations.
Well I hate to burst your bubble, but effectively they are. Have you not been paying attention? Remember in 1994 when Republicans took control of the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years? They tried to balance the budget, and the Government media screamed bloody murder about how *THEY* should be blamed for shutting down the Government, as if many people *OUTSIDE* the government really gave a sh*t about that.
Oh, but the media did! They were on a non-stop tear in demonizing the people who had the audacity to demand the government live within it's means instead of allowing it to continue it's never ending deficit spending spree.
So which side was the media on? It was on the GOVERNMENT side. Funny that!
Those who do not believe the media are part of the ruling class have simply not been paying attention.
People need to lose their illusions. We have one party control of the airwaves and that party which controls it is the GOVERNMENT party. You can't get anything on the airwaves unless it has been approved by "GOVERNMENT PARTY" censors.
Wake up. Wake up. Wake up.
-
God! I feel like I am communicating with children.
And I had thought that I was communicating with Conservatives. Silly me.
NPR uses my tax dollars (at the point of a gun) to openly prop up Democrat candidates and belittle Republican candidates. I see nothing in the Constitution that would indicate this as a legitimate function of government.
If NPR really has 100 million listeners, then they should have no problem raising their own funding. But leave my tax dollars out of it.
-
@geronl
Government by committee. Why not? Look at how well that worked for the Soviets!
It may make you feel morally superior to misstate what I said, but it is only a temporary feeling. When you get around to finally understanding the threat we currently face, perhaps you will offer some sort of proposal yourself, and God help you if you suggest the voters need to use Representative Democracy to control the one party abuse of the national brainwash machine.
The existing system is killing us. You are like the optimist who falls out of a building and after falling half way says "So far so good!"
No, the eventual cost of allowing the existing system will not be good.
-
The George "H" Bush presidency was a disaster in that it was he who drafted NAFTA and Billy Bob signed it into law and yet another Bush was voted in later; however Kerry was definitely the greater evil. IMHO the first four years of "W"'s presidency was good in comparison to his last 4 years when we lost control of our majority in Congress. The Obama years have of course been a nightmare and to think that our choices are now of either another Clinton or Trump makes the Bush years look pretty darn good!
The Bush years were an epic fail for the party, for the movement, and for the country.
-
@DiogenesLamp
What you are suggesting is "more of the same with Supreme Court approval",which could only result in more of what you are upset about.
Where does the Supreme Court come into it? Where do you even get this idea?
Voters. V.O.T.E.R.S.
How is it that you can not see something this obvious?
Right back at you.
-
People just gloss right over that "elected by the people" thing. It does not even seem to register with them that what I was proposing is answerable to the voters, not "Our Political masters."
Because everything worked out so well by following the original framework.
It's only been amended 27 times, and most of those amendments were mistakes. Without some of those mistakes we would not now be worrying about the threat that one party control of the media poses to the survival of the nation.
Well I hate to burst your bubble, but effectively they are. Have you not been paying attention? Remember in 1994 when Republicans took control of the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years? They tried to balance the budget, and the Government media screamed bloody murder about how *THEY* should be blamed for shutting down the Government, as if many people *OUTSIDE* the government really gave a sh*t about that.
Oh, but the media did! They were on a non-stop tear in demonizing the people who had the audacity to demand the government live within it's means instead of allowing it to continue it's never ending deficit spending spree.
So which side was the media on? It was on the GOVERNMENT side. Funny that!
Those who do not believe the media are part of the ruling class have simply not been paying attention.
People need to lose their illusions. We have one party control of the airwaves and that party which controls it is the GOVERNMENT party. You can't get anything on the airwaves unless it has been approved by "GOVERNMENT PARTY" censors.
Wake up. Wake up. Wake up.
@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.
Like that famous intellectual Goober Gore used to say,"whut iz spossedtabe up iz doawn,and whut is sposstabe doawn iz up!"
-
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."
Is it Hillary's base? Who's base is it? Is it Jill Stein's base? Is it Gary Johnson's base?
And also, why are we obsessing on the specific numbers rather than the original point? You piss-off the majority of your base, and you should not be surprised if they are mad at you.
And GOP support is hovering around 80%? Democrats do not care if their candidate is a "dirty yellow dog", they support their party's nominee.
They win, of course.
-
And I had thought that I was communicating with Conservatives. Silly me.
NPR uses my tax dollars (at the point of a gun) to openly prop up Democrat candidates and belittle Republican candidates. I see nothing in the Constitution that would indicate this as a legitimate function of government.
If NPR really has 100 million listeners, then they should have no problem raising their own funding. But leave my tax dollars out of it.
@Hoodat
REGARDLESS of how it is being used,the PURPOSE of NPR is to inform the public of what the government is doing about various things of public interest.
NPR is NOT the issue. The way NPR is being used IS the issue,and if we can turn this around we would be fools to not try to reach this audience of 100 million listeners who are already listening to it and conditioned to agree with what they hear from that source.
-
It's true. As sad as the "Trump era" is for the GOP, the 2002 - 2007 was hardly any better. That was when real change was possible, but not taken. And the BUsh presidency was an epic disaster.
The George HW Bush presidency was an "epic" disaster. The George W. Presidency was merely a "disaster."
That family is originally from big monied elite in Connecticut. They have always been limousine liberals who were uncomfortable with ordinary middle class virtues.
-
The George HW Bush presidency was an "epic" disaster. The George W. Presidency was merely a "disaster."
That family is originally from big monied elite in Connecticut. They have always been limousine liberals who were uncomfortable with ordinary middle class virtues.
They even married into the Harriman Family. That was their real connection to Nazi money,but the media always downplayed it. IIRC,one of the Harrimans actually lived in Nazi-occupied France for most of WW-2,and was free to come and go as they pleased.
BTW,Prescott Bush Sr's "punishment" for the conviction of money laundering for the Nazi's during a time of war was to be elected to the US Senate in 1954. Trading with the enemy during a time of war is generally considered to be treason,and a capital crime for those who are not "connected". Next time you hear someone proclaim that government corruption is a new thing,remind them of that little factoid.
-
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?
Still, I think McCain could have been elected if the economy had not turned south, also, I don't hold the view but I do know folks who think it was a big mistake to choose Palin.
-
And I had thought that I was communicating with Conservatives. Silly me.
NPR uses my tax dollars (at the point of a gun) to openly prop up Democrat candidates and belittle Republican candidates. I see nothing in the Constitution that would indicate this as a legitimate function of government.
If NPR really has 100 million listeners, then they should have no problem raising their own funding. But leave my tax dollars out of it.
Missing the point. Missing the point. Missing the point. I do not know what NPR's numbers actually are, but i'm pretty sure they don't come close to 100 million listeners per week.
(http://nationalpublicmedia.com/npr/audience/)
My point was they are a teeny tiny fish in a far greater media ocean. They are insignificant compared to the larger problem of the propaganda organs which easily get 100 million per week. (http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2012/network-news-the-pace-of-change-accelerates/network-by-the-numbers/)
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.
If people do not think this matters, then why would they object to "Government Control" of it? If control of the media doesn't matter, who cares who controls it then?
It matters who controls the media. Right now it is under the control of the party of government. We have to change this situation.
-
And I had thought that I was communicating with Conservatives. Silly me.
NPR uses my tax dollars (at the point of a gun) to openly prop up Democrat candidates and belittle Republican candidates. I see nothing in the Constitution that would indicate this as a legitimate function of government.
If NPR really has 100 million listeners, then they should have no problem raising their own funding. But leave my tax dollars out of it.
:amen: :amen: :amen:
-
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.
-
As for Planned Parenthood,the ONLY people in America that consider PP to be a enemy today are the tiny fringe that identify themselves as fundie Christians. YOU might THINK you are a large group that represents the typical America because everybody in your family and your church agree with you,but you are nothing but a tiny fringe element most people laugh at.
I just wish there were some way those of us who are sane could piss you fundies off enough to make you desert the Republican Party for good because you scare more conservative-leaning voters away from the Republican Party and into the Dim Party than you draw. There are a lot of people who register and vote Dim because they are justifiably terrified of Rabid Religious loons taking control over America and ruling as an American Christian Taliban.
You rant and rave about late term abortion,but the truth is you are opposed to birth control and if it were in your power it would be illegal to buy or use contraceptives,and you would insist that a mother die in childbirth than have an abortion. You know this but won't admit it,and everybody knows you know this. The truth is you BELONG in the Dim Party because you want the government to enforce your religious viewpoints using the force of law and the courts just like the globalists want to use the government to enforce their "religious" viewpoints.
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.
Just to give you my own personal diverse American opinion, I oppose abortion but do not oppose birth control. I make no apologies for not fitting in to your stereotype of what you assume I believe. Having said that, I do not believe the courts should ever dictate the legality of those issues, but instead the members of a society through representation of their local and state governments should determine how their society is shaped. This may be too radical a concept for you to grasp, but it is the heart of Conservatism.
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. 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.
I am shocked to discover that there are individuals on this forum who would defend federal spending outside the confined of Constitutional authority. It is exactly for this reason that we find ourselves $20 trillion in debt. As Everett Dickson once said, a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.
-
PBS is always doing those telethons, or at least seasonally. I don't know how their funding breaks down.
-
Even if Trump does not win;
He tore down the establishment in the GOP;
Unadulterated bullshit.
-
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.
-
We already have voter control. It's called changing the channel.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
@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.
-
:amen: :amen: :amen:
“In God’s name, I beg of you to think.” - DiogenesLamp
-
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.
-
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!!!
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://blog.karmona.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/ostrich_head_sand.jpg)
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.
-
Correct. They will. Which, you know, is kind of their right to do so?
-
I believe you overestimate the power of the networks.
You ever heard of this thing called "Television Commercials"?
(http://www.kerala365.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/TV-Commercials-Influence-on-Drinking-Habit-Among-Kids.jpg)
(http://image.cdn.ispot.tv/ad/7kas/progressive-snapshot-testimonials-large-2.jpg)
How does that stuff work?
-
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?
-
PBS is always doing those telethons, or at least seasonally. I don't know how their funding breaks down.
(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/12/17/PieChart_01_2015-01_custom-3ec10bd89b469c991bb411857757654d6a14a077-s900-c85.jpg)
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.
(http://i0.wp.com/digiday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/npr-rev.jpg)
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.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
The media hires who it wants to. I worked in a newsroom filled with H1Bs hired over Americans in direct violation of the law.
Everything begins with one person. To have an impact we have to stop consuming enough media to make them a liability, not an asset to the liberals in govt.
So yes. Just like principled voting, it works when people actually do it.
-
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.
If you think the word "Voters" equals "Government" then you have a point. If you think "voters" and "government" mean two different things, then you don't.
If you believe
— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —
Then you should have no problem with the "governed" having a say in how they are governed, and the most important thing they should have a say about is HAVING A SAY!
Freedom of speech baby! Not just Liberal Speech, but Conservative speech needs to be allowed too!
Obstacles to conservative speech having an equal say on the airwaves, need to be destroyed.
-
@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.
I doubt it very seriously. Trumps sexual assaults and demeaning treatment of women have brought nonvoters in who will vote for Clinton even though they dislike her. And these are not the feminazi brigade, these are regular women. My wife is one.
-
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.)
I disagree with you wholeheartedly on your attempt to browbeat those of us who don't support Trump, but this post NAILS it.
Many people seem to think that if they get a slim Republican majority in Congress, time freezes. They don't understand that overreach is VERY easy to fall into. The Left has gained so much over decades by incrementalism, not by browbeating their representatives into radical programs. Sure, they sometimes push some big initiatives, but they do it with some modicum of popular support.
-
Correct. They will. Which, you know, is kind of their right to do so?
The American people have a *RIGHT* to hear both sides, not a monopoly of one side. You are defending a system in which Americans are only allowed half their rights, with the other half being banned and censored.
As the President of the Constitutional convention explained:
(http://eskipaper.com/images/benjamin-franklin-1.jpg)
5. Printers are educated in the Belief, that when Men differ in Opinion, both Sides ought equally to have the Advantage of being heard by the Publick; and that when Truth and Error have fair Play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter: Hence they chearfully serve all contending Writers that pay them well, without regarding on which side they are of the Question in Dispute.
Let me make this clear. Any system which leaves one side in control of all access to the public is a despotic system. It is anti-American. It denies the fundamental right of Freedom of Speech to one side or the other.
Liberals have a right to put forth their ideas. What they do *NOT* have a right to do is control and censor the other side's ideas.
That is what they are doing now.
-
I doubt it very seriously. Trumps sexual assaults and demeaning treatment of women have brought nonvoters in who will vote for Clinton even though they dislike her. And these are not the feminazi brigade, these are regular women. My wife is one.
@Oceander
Ok.
I am basing my guess entirely on seeing a number of Trump bumper stickers,t-shirts,hats,and yard signs as I drive around,and I honestly can't remember seeing any Hillary promotional stuff. Mind you,I am not driving around back roads or minority neighborhoods looking for stuff,but just noticing what I see as I drive along going to where ever it is I am going.
Maybe that's because they people who plan to vote for her are a little ashamed of themselves,and don't want to publicize it?
Who knows?
-
Actually 80% of party members supporting the nominee is remarkably low. A lot of us have left the party.
The support level is actually about 75%.
-
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 I stated before, I didn't expect you to understand.
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.
Then give out vouchers for 'free' [sic] birth control instead of subsidizing one particular entity. Or supply pharmacies with 'free' birth control to be made available to poor black women, since that's who we're really talking about here, right? There are plenty of other organizations out there who give out 'free' birth control who don't receive government money or who don't use that government money to pay the GSA costs of their abortion wing.
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?
And fees. Change "the majority of" to "all", and there will no longer be any problem.
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.
Article I, Sec 8 (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html)
-
.....Let me make this clear. Any system which leaves one side in control of all access to the public is a despotic system. It is anti-American. It denies the fundamental right of Freedom of Speech to one side or the other.
Giving you three :amen: :amen: :amen: on that one. A tyranny of the right is no better than a tyranny of the left. We are either all free,or none of us are free.
-
The American people have a *RIGHT* to hear both sides, not a monopoly of one side. You are defending a system in which Americans are only allowed half their rights, with the other half being banned and censored.
As the President of the Constitutional convention explained:
(http://eskipaper.com/images/benjamin-franklin-1.jpg)
Let me make this clear. Any system which leaves one side in control of all access to the public is a despotic system. It is anti-American. It denies the fundamental right of Freedom of Speech to one side or the other.
Liberals have a right to put forth their ideas. What they do *NOT* have a right to do is control and censor the other side's ideas.
That is what they are doing now.
You are expending a lot of time to advocate for the reinstatement of the 'Fairness Doctrine'.
-
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.
We will preserve freedom by turning all workplaces democratic and run by Workers Committee's! Not just the media, but every single business and organization will be elected.
This sounds familiar.
is it 1918 all over again, comrade....
-
The support level is actually about 75%.
That makes it Spectacularly Low. I have a whole chart of this. Kidding.
-
Then give out vouchers for 'free' [sic] birth control instead of subsidizing one particular entity. Or supply pharmacies with 'free' birth control to be made available to poor black women, since that's who we're really talking about here, right? <<
Ahhh,the race card. Always handy to pull out of your pocket when you have nothing else. I'm a little surprised it hasn't shown up sooner.
-
But educating and converting the electorate is hard! says Authoritarian Barbie.
It is not "hard". It is effectively impossible. The party of government has an effective monopoly on all teaching and broadcasting.
You need to wake up to the fact that we are living in a government controlled monopoly of speech and education.
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.
So long as the party of government has megaphones blowing in the ears of everyone in the nation you need to reach, you aren't going to achieve any sort of success.
(http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/woman-screams-ear-man-megaphone-19397314.jpg)
If propaganda wasn't so important, why would they have control of it?
Why does every despotic government seize on the apparatus necessary to spread propaganda and thereafter control it?
-
@Oceander
Ok.
I am basing my guess entirely on seeing a number of Trump bumper stickers,t-shirts,hats,and yard signs as I drive around,and I honestly can't remember seeing any Hillary promotional stuff. Mind you,I am not driving around back roads or minority neighborhoods looking for stuff,but just noticing what I see as I drive along going to where ever it is I am going.
Maybe that's because they people who plan to vote for her are a little ashamed of themselves,and don't want to publicize it?
Who knows?
I agree that it's a bizarre election and it is possible that people who will vote for her are embarrassed. My wife isn't but that has no bearing on whether others are. However, I think another issue with the missing signs is that the democrats much more than the republicans have switched over to social media and that is where the "signs" are showing up, such as shared links on Facebook.
-
The media hires who it wants to.
It hires Liberals and pretty much only Liberals. They throw the occasional token conservative in there to pretend objectivity, but the Anchors, camera crews and janitorial staff and so forth are all Liberal Democrat Union members from Urban environments.
I worked in a newsroom filled with H1Bs hired over Americans in direct violation of the law.
Obviously they weren't too worried about that, now were they? Why should they worry? They are effectively "connected" to all the right people in the ruling class.
Everything begins with one person. To have an impact we have to stop consuming enough media to make them a liability, not an asset to the liberals in govt.
So yes. Just like principled voting, it works when people actually do it.
Does it appear to be working to you?
Did the Jews refusing to listen to Hitler's propaganda "work" for them?
Propaganda must be actively opposed. It is an action that cannot be fought with a non action. It must have an equal and opposite action.
-
Then give out vouchers for 'free' [sic] birth control instead of subsidizing one particular entity.
Or how about:
BUY YOUR OWN CRAP!!!
-
“In God’s name, I beg of you to think.” - DiogenesLamp
That's cute and all, but what did you mean to say?
-
I doubt it very seriously. Trumps sexual assaults and demeaning treatment of women have brought nonvoters in who will vote for Clinton even though they dislike her. And these are not the feminazi brigade, these are regular women. My wife is one.
(http://www.golubphoto.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/01_Brand_2010.jpg)
When Rapist Bill Clinton was in the headlines, they were driving the cattle in the other direction.
And people don't think the media have an effect.
-
That's cute and all, but what did you mean to say?
We need an elected body to tell us what to think, I guess
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
Come on, @geronl, you heard the Donald... He's going to shut down the First Amendment and he doesn't need to win Congress! REjoice! Why, I can already hear the presses being smashed!
-
And on cue:
CNN cuts satellite feed as soon as WikiLeaks is mentioned by Congressman Collins
https://youtu.be/cbA5RE9eK08
-
And on cue:
CNN cuts satellite feed as soon as WikiLeaks is mentioned by Congressman Collins
https://youtu.be/cbA5RE9eK08
And until the public cares about such things, it will continue.
-
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.
-
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."
-
We need an elected body to tell us what to think, I guess
I actually think some of you need doctors and thorazine.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I actually think some of you need doctors and thorazine.
That's not helping, either.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
That's not helping, either.
I catch a lot of digs. Occasionally I throw one back. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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).
(http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/kjuss/picture3788404/ALTERNATES/FREE_960/Leguslaturesgop.jpg)
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.
-
Wow! When was the last time you voted? I thought you were abstaining forever?
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
You must have me confused with someone else. I have voted in every election since Goldwater ran. I don't always vote for a presidential candidate,but I always vote down-ticket at a minimum.
I was planning on sitting this presidential election out also,but trying to make sure nobody named Clinton sits in the WH again. ranks right up there with making sure nobody named Bush ever sits in the WH again,and I am on record stating several times that "If someone named Bush is ever running against someone named Satan for president,I will vote for Satan as the lesser of two evils.".
-
I was planning on sitting this presidential election out also,but trying to make sure nobody named Clinton sits in the WH again. ranks right up there with making sure nobody named Bush ever again sits in the WH.
I hear that!
-
Idiotic idea. Your EEOC board would quickly get controlled by liberals.
'
I thought EEOC prosecutions were done by the Department of Health and Human Services?
Doesn't the President have control of that? Instruct them that discrimination against conservatives in hiring practices is a violation of the law, and order them to go after those industries that discriminate on the basis of creed.
-
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.
That is a good argument. There are several.
Glenn Reynolds argues that: "We must elect Trump so that the media will resume their rolls as watchdogs instead of enablers."
He argues that the media will be on Trump like stink on Sh*t if he does something wrong. They will of course ignore blatant wrongdoings by Hillary.
Another good argument is one I made some weeks ago.
If we elect Trump, Hillary goes to jail, and so do all the cronies involved in Obama's illegalities for the last 8 years. The smaller fish might even implicate Obama in criminal wrongdoing.
But yeah, pissing off the GOPe *AND* the Democrats is probably the best argument i've heard so far.
How else are you going to rebel at this point?
We will be making all the right enemies.
-
Another good argument is one I made some weeks ago.
If we elect Trump, Hillary goes to jail, and so do all the cronies involved in Obama's illegalities for the last 8 years.
@DiogenesLamp
You can't possibly be serious. If you really believe that you are too incompetent to be allowed to vote. She could eat a live infant on national tv during prime time and not even get arrested as long as the infant was white.
Neither she nor Bill is EVER going to be under arrest for anything. Hell,he was convicted of committing a federal felony while sitting in the WH and the only thing that happened to him was he had to give up the law license he never used anyhow.
Yeah,he was impeached too,but not enough US Senators was even willing to look at the evidence against him locked away in a room in the US Senate for their convenient viewing,so they dropped the charges against him to a lack of evidence,and left him in office.
-
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.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa... I said nothing like that. I said we have to deal with the choices we have before us. At this point the frying pan is better than the fire.
During the Primary I supported Ted Cruz. I still think he was more morally fit, smarter, and knowledgeable in terms of conservative philosophy.
But I don't have that choice anymore. My state went for Cruz, but other, more Liberal states went for Trump. I have to deal with the circumstances we have now. I had to vote for Romney too, and I didn't like it at all.
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?
Again you are putting words in my mouth. One does not know someone is a coward until they falter under assault. (from the media, of course) Once you realize they are afraid of and unable to push back against the New York media, it's not hard to predict they will fail.
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.
You are making up this story, so you will have to narrate the rest of it to the rest of us.
Your claim is built on false assumptions. McCain was brave under physical torture, but could not withstand the pain he would feel if he was ostracized by the social environment he prefers. The Beltway.
We voters could not discern this until he revealed it through his actions.
-
@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.
That is a very good story, and it tends to demonstrate that Communism has survived longer in our institutions than theirs. They now see the fallacies inherent in it, while over here it is still just theory.
Of course what they have transitioned to is somewhat closer to National Socialism than it is to Capitalism.
-
@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?
I think this is the third time I have addressed this point. (more evidence of what I meant, because many of you don't seem to be keeping up with the other messages in the thread.)
What I thought was ill thought out was the agreement that NPR represented a significant part of the problem we face.
In all your years of thinking about the problem, did you arrive at the conclusion that NPR is very significant compared to Liberal censorship of conservative access to broadcast media?
I consider it a problem, but it is a little problem. Not a big problem.
-
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
You must have me confused with someone else. I have voted in every election since Goldwater ran. I don't always vote for a presidential candidate,but I always vote down-ticket at a minimum.
I was planning on sitting this presidential election out also,but trying to make sure nobody named Clinton sits in the WH again. ranks right up there with making sure nobody named Bush ever sits in the WH again,and I am on record stating several times that "If someone named Bush is ever running against someone named Satan for president,I will vote for Satan as the lesser of two evils.".
No more Bushes. No more Clintons. Amen!
Both families have done quite enough already.
-
Hoodat: Then give out vouchers for 'free' [sic] birth control instead of subsidizing one particular entity. Or supply pharmacies with 'free' birth control to be made available to poor black women, since that's who we're really talking about here, right? <<
Ahhh,the race card. Always handy to pull out of your pocket when you have nothing else. I'm a little surprised it hasn't shown up sooner.
@sneakypete
LOL, are you serious? When I have nothing else? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
With detailed response after detailed response after detailed response, you search for one word, discard the rest, and then accuse me of playing the race card? Utterly pathetic.
btw, killing black babies is what Planned Parenthood does. Preventing the birth of black children was the reason they were founded. It is the reason their abortion clinics are placed in black areas of inner cities. You will be hard pressed to find a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in a lily-white suburb or town like Chappaqua.
I see you conveniently ignored the actual substance of what I wrote. Kitchen getting too hot for you? The bottom line is that there are plenty of ways to get birth control into the hands of women - rich or poor - without funding the largest abortion provider in the country - one which was founded on racism, and one that funnels part of that money right back into Democrat Party coffers. Yet for some strange reason, you want to continue that gravy train with ears tightly closed.
Bah!
-
Or how about:
BUY YOUR OWN CRAP!!!
Works for me.
-
I think this is the third time I have addressed this point. (more evidence of what I meant, because many of you don't seem to be keeping up with the other messages in the thread.) <<
@DiogenesLamp
Sorry about that. I,like I suspect most other posters,reply to posts on a thread as we see them,and not being mindreaders,we have no idea who has posted what in reply to that post further down the thread.
>>What I thought was ill thought out was the agreement that NPR represented a significant part of the problem we face.
In all your years of thinking about the problem, did you arrive at the conclusion that NPR is very significant compared to Liberal censorship of conservative access to broadcast media? <<
In all those years,I have probably put maybe 30 minutes total thinking about NPR. Piddly little shit that is nothing more than a sideshow,and I had rather spend my time on things like illegal and even legal immigration,Sharia Law in the US,open borders,2nd Amendment issues,1st Amendment issues,"for English press 2",etc,etc,etc. I consider NPR to be more of a bookkeeping issue than a freedom issue,and even then it is no more than lunch money when looking at the feral budget. The army alone probably spends more money on condoms each year than the government spends on NPR.
>>I consider it a problem, but it is a little problem. Not a big problem. <<
OK. Free country,and all dat.
-
@sneakypete
LOL, are you serious? When I have nothing else? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA<<
@Hoodat
Didn't seem to be much more in that post.
>>With detailed response after detailed response after detailed response, you search for one word, discard the rest, and then accuse me of playing the race card? Utterly pathetic.<<
I don't have the time to discuss the minutia or every single pearl of wisdom you write. I ain't your babysitter and I ain't your daddy. I respond to what I want to respond to when I have the time and/or the inclination to respond to it.
>>btw, killing black babies is what Planned Parenthood does. Preventing the birth of black children was the reason they were founded. <<
I remember reading that years ago,and have no doubt about it being true. Times,and political expediency have changed though,and I have no doubt today that our Masters in DC would prefer to see more white babies aborted than minority babies. Minority babies tend to vote Global when they grow up,and even sometimes while they are still babies. White people,not so much. White people also tend to be harder to handle when irritated,and can't be bought off with free cheap cell phones.
>> It is the reason their abortion clinics are placed in black areas of inner cities. You will be hard pressed to find a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in a lily-white suburb or town like Chappaqua.<<
Probably. Can't say that I personally have ever seen one anywhere.
>>I see you conveniently ignored the actual substance of what I wrote. Kitchen getting too hot for you? <<
Yeah,that's what it is. I am so in awe of your immense wisdom that I am cowed to the point of being speechless. Good observation!
>>The bottom line is that there are plenty of ways to get birth control into the hands of women - rich or poor - without funding the largest abortion provider in the country - one which was founded on racism, and one that funnels part of that money right back into Democrat Party coffers. <<
Having a Midol Moment over this crap,ain't ya?
-
I don't have the time to discuss the minutia or every single pearl of wisdom you write. I ain't your babysitter and I ain't your daddy. I respond to what I want to respond to when I have the time and/or the inclination to respond to it.
Fair enough. Just don't accuse me of having nothing else to offer just because of your own deficiency of time and/or inclination. And don't use the word 'black' as an excuse to check out of the discussion with some phantom race card accusation. If you don't have time, then you don't have time.
Besides, it is clear from your previous post that your support of taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with handing out birth control pills, but involves something else such as your perceptions and/or prejudices against Christians. Just something to think about.
-
Besides, it is clear from your previous post that your support of taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with handing out birth control pills, but involves something else such as your perceptions and/or prejudices against Christians. Just something to think about.
@Hoodat
What is clear to me is you are a bald-faced professional liar.
-
@Hoodat
What is clear to me is you are a bald-faced professional liar.
Show me the lie.
-
For reference, here again is your initial statement:
As for Planned Parenthood,the ONLY people in America that consider PP to be a enemy today are the tiny fringe that identify themselves as fundie Christians. YOU might THINK you are a large group that represents the typical America because everybody in your family and your church agree with you,but you are nothing but a tiny fringe element most people laugh at.
I just wish there were some way those of us who are sane could piss you fundies off enough to make you desert the Republican Party for good because you scare more conservative-leaning voters away from the Republican Party and into the Dim Party than you draw. There are a lot of people who register and vote Dim because they are justifiably terrified of Rabid Religious loons taking control over America and ruling as an American Christian Taliban.
You rant and rave about late term abortion,but the truth is you are opposed to birth control and if it were in your power it would be illegal to buy or use contraceptives,and you would insist that a mother die in childbirth than have an abortion. You know this but won't admit it,and everybody knows you know this. The truth is you BELONG in the Dim Party because you want the government to enforce your religious viewpoints using the force of law and the courts just like the globalists want to use the government to enforce their "religious" viewpoints.
-
Show me the lie.
@Hoodat
It was in the post,you dumbass.
-
Show me the lie.
It was in the post,you dumbass.
Then it should be easy for you. Show me the lie. When it comes to matters of truth, if you are going to call someone a liar, you should at least be able to prove it.
-
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.
The History Channel also has "Ancient Aliens". Hurray for Giorgio! We like his meme!
(Seriously though, I do agree with you, @EC I loved "biography" show.)
-
@Freya @EC
Quote from: EC on October 19, 2016, 03:36:21 PM
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.<<
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Our Founding Fathers had VERY good reasons to make sure our country was established as a Republic,and not a Democracy. Democracy ALWAYS results in mob rule.