|
Post by jdredd on Apr 18, 2010 15:01:43 GMT -5
Government Owned Media? Is that why it sat on it's hands while Bush lied us into war? Is that why they slept while Wall Street speculators ran our economy aground? You can call it Government Owned Media, Lame Stream Media, whatever you'd like, it doesn't make it leftist unless you are really far to the right. Corporate Owned Media is the reality.
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Apr 18, 2010 15:11:48 GMT -5
Government Owned Media? Is that why it sat on it's hands while Bush lied us into war? Is that why they slept while Wall Street speculators ran our economy aground? You can call it Government Owned Media, Lame Stream Media, whatever you'd like, it doesn't make it leftist unless you are really far to the right. Corporate Owned Media is the reality. First - Bush did not lie us into war - so let's step out of the insane leftie mantra. Second - there was non-stop bashing and false allegations continuously streaming from Government Owned Media. Only then it was Left-Winged Owned Media as the Left was not in the WH. Currently - if BO does not want something published - the Alphabet media is happy to lick his boots. As far as being owned by big business - keep suckin' on the hookah buddy as they are as anti-business as they come. So much so they put their bias ahead of good business and forgot about their customers.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 18, 2010 23:00:13 GMT -5
Government Owned Media? Is that why it sat on it's hands while Bush lied us into war? Is that why they slept while Wall Street speculators ran our economy aground? You can call it Government Owned Media, Lame Stream Media, whatever you'd like, it doesn't make it leftist unless you are really far to the right. Corporate Owned Media is the reality. First - Bush did not lie us into war - so let's step out of the insane leftie mantra. Second - there was non-stop bashing and false allegations continuously streaming from Government Owned Media. Only then it was Left-Winged Owned Media as the Left was not in the WH. Currently - if BO does not want something published - the Alphabet media is happy to lick his boots. As far as being owned by big business - keep suckin' on the hookah buddy as they are as anti-business as they come. So much so they put their bias ahead of good business and forgot about their customers. "First - Bush did not lie us into war - so let's step out of the insane leftie mantra." I think that is one of the basic problems between left and right...irreconcilable versions of history. For instance, the right's "America can do no wrong" vs. the left's "America has done lots of wrong". Take your pick.
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Apr 19, 2010 12:31:23 GMT -5
First - Bush did not lie us into war - so let's step out of the insane leftie mantra. Second - there was non-stop bashing and false allegations continuously streaming from Government Owned Media. Only then it was Left-Winged Owned Media as the Left was not in the WH. Currently - if BO does not want something published - the Alphabet media is happy to lick his boots. As far as being owned by big business - keep suckin' on the hookah buddy as they are as anti-business as they come. So much so they put their bias ahead of good business and forgot about their customers. "First - Bush did not lie us into war - so let's step out of the insane leftie mantra." I think that is one of the basic problems between left and right...irreconcilable versions of history. For instance, the right's "America can do no wrong" vs. the left's "America has done lots of wrong". Take your pick. I think what the difference is is that most of you on the left believe anything that fits into your current emotional state. If you are miserable - you believe everything you are fed, even when the facts get in the way. Fantasizing, imagining, pessimism, etc - fit more into the realm of how you view life. Look at the dark films you all consider art. On one side you bemoan the workers being treated like slaves - yet you want a country to operate with an 'enslave the people and have them be the workers of the world' form of government. None of us are here to live our lives for others - we are to live our lives OURSELVES and to the best of our abilities. Then and only then are we able to assist others - if that is what we wish to do.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 19, 2010 13:01:14 GMT -5
"First - Bush did not lie us into war - so let's step out of the insane leftie mantra." I think that is one of the basic problems between left and right...irreconcilable versions of history. For instance, the right's "America can do no wrong" vs. the left's "America has done lots of wrong". Take your pick. I think what the difference is is that most of you on the left believe anything that fits into your current emotional state. If you are miserable - you believe everything you are fed, even when the facts get in the way. Fantasizing, imagining, pessimism, etc - fit more into the realm of how you view life. Look at the dark films you all consider art. On one side you bemoan the workers being treated like slaves - yet you want a country to operate with an 'enslave the people and have them be the workers of the world' form of government. None of us are here to live our lives for others - we are to live our lives OURSELVES and to the best of our abilities. Then and only then are we able to assist others - if that is what we wish to do. Yes, as I've said elsewhere the right's philosophy is "Every man for himself", with the caveat that people can come together for common cause...if they feel like it. So be it. I don't care for the draft myself... But hey, I wouldn't be putting down fantasing, imagining, pessimism. Lots of people make a good living in Hollywood, books, music, etc. with those ingredients! Look at my favorite, the Comic-con....
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Apr 19, 2010 13:46:51 GMT -5
I think what the difference is is that most of you on the left believe anything that fits into your current emotional state. If you are miserable - you believe everything you are fed, even when the facts get in the way. Fantasizing, imagining, pessimism, etc - fit more into the realm of how you view life. Look at the dark films you all consider art. On one side you bemoan the workers being treated like slaves - yet you want a country to operate with an 'enslave the people and have them be the workers of the world' form of government. None of us are here to live our lives for others - we are to live our lives OURSELVES and to the best of our abilities. Then and only then are we able to assist others - if that is what we wish to do. Yes, as I've said elsewhere the right's philosophy is "Every man for himself", with the caveat that people can come together for common cause...if they feel like it. So be it. I don't care for the draft myself... But hey, I wouldn't be putting down fantasing, imagining, pessimism. Lots of people make a good living in Hollywood, books, music, etc. with those ingredients! Look at my favorite, the Comic-con.... JD, the fact that you spend the day not gainfully employed tells us even more: Of course you want us hardworking folks to give to the pot - that pot is feeding you. So we toil away to better our lives for ourselves and our families - you want to steal from our babies, so you can lie around and whine. In life - if we do not care for ourselves - we weaken to the point we cannot tend ourselves or our family. Taking care of one's self is crucial. Once we are strong, we stabilize our homes, THEN and only then can we assist others. If we do it the other way around - then we are killing ourselves. Take two starving individuals - toss a piece of meat between them. Do you honestly think they will be kind and share the meat? Not unless there is enough to go around. It is called survival. You would do the same if you were in that position.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 19, 2010 14:24:22 GMT -5
Yes, as I've said elsewhere the right's philosophy is "Every man for himself", with the caveat that people can come together for common cause...if they feel like it. So be it. I don't care for the draft myself... But hey, I wouldn't be putting down fantasing, imagining, pessimism. Lots of people make a good living in Hollywood, books, music, etc. with those ingredients! Look at my favorite, the Comic-con.... JD, the fact that you spend the day not gainfully employed tells us even more: Of course you want us hardworking folks to give to the pot - that pot is feeding you. So we toil away to better our lives for ourselves and our families - you want to steal from our babies, so you can lie around and whine. In life - if we do not care for ourselves - we weaken to the point we cannot tend ourselves or our family. Taking care of one's self is crucial. Once we are strong, we stabilize our homes, THEN and only then can we assist others. If we do it the other way around - then we are killing ourselves. Take two starving individuals - toss a piece of meat between them. Do you honestly think they will be kind and share the meat? Not unless there is enough to go around. It is called survival. You would do the same if you were in that position. There you go, picking on my employment situation again. Yes, I know, it's just me and 16,000,000 other bums. I would feel guilty...if I wasn't blaming it on Corporate America. As for your self-reliance philosophy, it just isn't realistic. How do you make money in modern society? From other people, unless you are a subsistence farmer. So the welfare of society as a whole is crucial to anybody making a living buying or selling or manufacturing. "No man is an island"...
|
|
|
Post by dolphie on Apr 19, 2010 14:41:49 GMT -5
JD, the fact that you spend the day not gainfully employed tells us even more: Of course you want us hardworking folks to give to the pot - that pot is feeding you. So we toil away to better our lives for ourselves and our families - you want to steal from our babies, so you can lie around and whine. In life - if we do not care for ourselves - we weaken to the point we cannot tend ourselves or our family. Taking care of one's self is crucial. Once we are strong, we stabilize our homes, THEN and only then can we assist others. If we do it the other way around - then we are killing ourselves. Take two starving individuals - toss a piece of meat between them. Do you honestly think they will be kind and share the meat? Not unless there is enough to go around. It is called survival. You would do the same if you were in that position. There you go, picking on my employment situation again. Yes, I know, it's just me and 16,000,000 other bums. I would feel guilty...if I wasn't blaming it on Corporate America. As for your self-reliance philosophy, it just isn't realistic. How do you make money in modern society? From other people, unless you are a subsistence farmer. So the welfare of society as a whole is crucial to anybody making a living buying or selling or manufacturing. "No man is an island"... It is referred to as bartering and has been in existence for quite some time. I make money by providing a service that someone else cannot do for themselves. They provide me with money or an exchange in services. It is not a lot different from the times when men married women to produce offspring and to tend the home as they protected the women and brought home the bounty (food, earnings, etc). Continue trying to philosophize - it will not work. Re: your employment status you are correct, I will never comprehend someone who lives off of other folks then complain about those who work hard to provide for themselves and others. Yet - it is YOUR choice to be as non-productive or productive as you wish. What is not your Right is to impose that waste of life upon the rest of us. Re: the millions unemployed - that is in large part due to your side of things. If our country were like it once was - instead of depending upon government to provide - we would find a means to bring monies/foodstuffs into your lives. This includes allowing illegals to do the work that our own people should be doing. Not to beat a dead horse - but during downturns in our economy - I have taken on 3+ jobs in order to meet my expenses. They were all low pay. One of the jobs was working in the fields in the desert. I came with a skilled and educated background - yet employment was not readily gained in that area. Even though I own a business - I am constantly exploring other opportunities to balance out the slow times. You assume that the folks on the right have not encountered tough times. What a bigoted view of the right and how extremely inaccurate. We are successful because we battled - even when fatigued - to survive and prosper. Actually - I would be willing to bet that many of us - on these forums - who are on the right, have lived through tougher times and lives than you could even vaguely comprehend. Yet - we pull ourselves up and out.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 15, 2010 3:25:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 13, 2010 2:13:01 GMT -5
David Cameron, Rupert Murdoch's PM candidate at work: www.economist.com/node/16791720"Yet within its first 100 days the Con-Lib coalition has emerged as a radical force. For the first time since Margaret Thatcher handbagged the world in 1979, Britain looks like the West’s test-tube (see article). It is daring again—not always in a good way but in one that is likely to be instructive to more timid souls, not least Mr Obama and his Republican foes." "For some time Mr Cameron, prompted by his closest domestic adviser, Steve Hilton, has talked about creating a Big Society, with more citizen volunteers taking on the state’s work. In office this vague idea has formalised into radical decentralisation: handing power to parents to run schools, to general practitioners to run the NHS, to local voters to pick police commissioners. In many cases, rather than just reduce the supply of the state, the Tories want to reduce the demand for it, changing a culture in which Britons have looked to government for services and answers they could provide themselves." "So a gamble it remains. But it is one that in general this newspaper supports. Throughout the rich world, government has simply got too big and Mr Cameron’s crew currently have the most promising approach to trimming it. Others—and not just the tottering likes of Greece and Spain—will surely follow. That includes America. At present, unlike in the 1980s, there is no Reaganesque echo from the other side of the Atlantic: despite the Tea Partiers’ zeal, the Republicans seem as clueless as Mr Obama in producing a credible medium-term plan to balance America’s budget. But pretty soon, as in Europe, somebody will have to come up with one—and Britain, for better or worse, is likely to be the place they will come to for ideas."
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 14, 2010 4:08:22 GMT -5
www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-newscorp-20100813,0,3467576.story "It's the latest bid by a major media company to build readership using new devices such as the iPad. The new publication would offer short, snappy stories and operate under the auspices of the New York Post." "short, snappy stories"...
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 18, 2010 1:12:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 24, 2010 13:20:41 GMT -5
www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2010/08/what-even-rupert-murdoch-cant-control/61953/"As with all Murdoch's news ventures, The Wall Street Journal is increasingly a reflection of the proprietor's instincts and ideological bias; whatever his employees may contend, Murdoch's influence is their ultimate guiding spirit. Just last week, News Corporation contributed $1 million to the Republican Governors Association, making it the GOP's largest corporate donor." "As for the Murdoch family, which is at the pinnacle of media power in more businesses than anyone else in our time, Rupert in his 80th year remains the absolute master. Various of his offspring have been positioned somewhat shakily as heirs when he finally steps back, but none of them display the fierceness of Rupert's ambition and vision. If history is a guide, the biggest challenge for Murdoch's News Corporation in the years ahead is not what Rupert Murdoch has been unable to accomplish, but how the shifting cast of family and business lieutenants will wrestle with what he leaves behind. For all his fortitude, even Rupert Murdoch is mortal and cannot determine that outcome."
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Aug 24, 2010 21:35:23 GMT -5
Rupert Murdoch is going to be just fine. He has some influential friends who don't mind investing in America:
Steven Benen August 24, 2010 'LET'S DO AS FOX NEWS COMMANDS, AND FOLLOW THE MONEY'.... "The Daily Show" is known for occasionally skewering Fox News, but some segments are truly special. Last night offered just such an episode. On "Fox & Friends" yesterday, the Republican network continued in its campaign to destroy the reputation of Faisal Abdul Rauf, the head of the Park51 project that Fox News used to find unobjectionable. As part of the shameless smear, "Fox & Friends" is "following the money trail," asking questions like, "Where is this money coming from? ... This guy has questionable ties." Former Bush administration official Dan Senor appeared on "Fox & Friends" and pushed a fairly specific angle: "The Kingdom Foundation, which has been a funder of Imam Rauf in the past, the Kingdom Foundation, so you know, is this Saudi organization headed up by the guy who tried to give Rudy Giuliani $10 million after 9/11 that was sent back. He funds radical madrassas all over the world." Brian Kilmeade added, "And he funds this imam." That's not all he funds. "The guy" Fox News is so upset about is Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who has extended support to Rauf. But Jon Stewart also brought up the inconvenient fact that the largest News Corp shareholder outside the Murdoch family is ... the Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. "That's right. The guy they're painting as a sinister money force owns part of Fox News. Let's do as Fox News commands, and follow the money: "This is the proposed 'terror mosque.' We know that it's a terror mosque, because the money may be coming from a bad guy, who definitely owns part of Fox News. Now we know that he's a bad guy, because we just heard it on Fox News. And by hearing it on Fox News, watching Fox News, I'm increasing their viewership, and their advertising rates go up. Now part of that money goes to the bad guy we learned about on Fox, because he's their part-owner, Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, allowing him then to 'make it rain,' so to speak, on the terror mosque. "My point is this. If we want to cut off funding to the terror mosque, we must, together as a nation, STOP WATCHING FOX! It's the only way! Using their reasoning, it's the only way to cut off the revenue stream to these 'bad dudes.'" That's extremely funny, and an extremely good point. Fox News wants Americans to believe Al-Waleed bin Talal is responsible for funding Islamic radicalism. Fox News doesn't want Americans to know that Al-Waleed bin Talal is also responsible for funding Fox News. If we should necessarily look askance at projects financed by this Saudi prince, it's only logical to suspect Fox News of wrongdoing, if not terrorist sympathies -- since, after all, some of it's financial backing comes from the same guy funding "radical madrassas" and the Burlington Coat Factory community center. Also note, during the Fox News broadcast, the various Republican media personalities refused to actually say Al-Waleed bin Talal's name, prompting a delightful discussion on "The Daily Show" about whether Fox News is "staggeringly, achingly, almost inspiringly stupid," or "really fu**ing evil." Take the time to watch this one. You'll be glad you did. The only decision now is whether to start reflexively referring to Fox News, just as a matter of course, as being financed by questionable Saudi royalty with ties to radicals. Postscript: Faiz Shakir also notes this morning that the Arab News, just today, published a photo of Prince Al-Waleed "meeting with News Corp executives to discuss how to 'further strengthen the strategic corporate alliance between Rotana and News Corp.'" They don't even have the decency to hide their dangerous foreign financiers....
Interesting note about Al-Waleed is his ongoing support of CAIR. Say it aint so Rupert........
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 24, 2010 22:15:16 GMT -5
|
|