I'm voting for McCain....

ViRedd said:

Is Congress government? Is the Democrat Party in office, Government?

When you regulate the lending institutions to the point that those regulation REQUIRE them to loan to sub-prime borrowers, you will have a problem. When proposals to put into place oversight on these lending institutions are shot down by GOVERNMENT ... then you have problems CAUSED by GOVERNMENT ... and not the private sector.

Now, I have to leave. Its "make a living" time. I'll look for your answer when I get back. Until then ... take care.

Vi

Click to expand...

Leilani Garden said:

That's r-i-g-h-t, Tigs. Some children are simply incorrigible, though, and this one appears so. I don't care if he flunks algebra. What's it matter to us? She just might be one of those people who, a few years from now, will be applying for financial aid to **try** to get an education. ha ha. I'd love to be a muse whispering in her ear at that time, "See? I told you. You do so approve of so-called liberal policies, like federal financial aid for education, now that YOU need it."

Enough of that crap.

I said that I would be back to elaborate a bit more on the myth of the liberal media. I've got a couple of links that have pertinent info, so I'm going to use those, with some of the more important points highlighted. I have, like, zero time today, but I did say this was important-and it is. I wish I had more time, because this issue is so important, but now i'm just repeating myself.

Here goes.

Pat Buchanan, who tends to be loquacious and has been for years, even dating back to his days as a staffer in the Nixon administration, got "caught" with this little snippet a few years ago. He knows the media are not liberal, and he IS a journalist, or at least he used to be.

Here's what he said about it, from just one link, but you can find this all over the Internet. To my knowledge, Buchanan has never rebutted this statement, which kind of says a lot.

First of all, a mini-bio on Buchanan, who he is, what he's been doing with his career, and which presidents he has worked with in the press/communications department:

Buchanan’s professional career began in 1962 when, at age 23, he became the youngest editorial writer for The St. Louis Globe Democrat. In 1966 he began his political career, when he signed on to be the first full-time staff member for Richard Nixon in what turned out to be Nixon’s comeback. Buchanan worked with Nixon during the 1966 and 1968 campaigns, as well as serving as special assistant to the president through the final days of Watergate. Buchanan has been a senior advisor to three American presidents — first Nixon, and then, in 1974, as special assistant to President Gerald Ford; and from 1985-87, he was White House Communications Director for President Ronald Reagan.

?Buchanan and Press? - Meet the faces of MSNBC - MSNBC.com

So if anyone was doubting what Buchanan had to say about the media being liberal, this man has heavy duty republican ties. Note also that Buchanan was with Nixon during the '68 campaign, which is when Nixon really went after the press with a vengeance because of his own difficulties with how he came off, particularly on television. Anyone can google quotes from Nixon regarding how persecuted he felt by the media.

Buchanan's remarks matter because of who he is and those for whom he has worked . . . in COMMUNICATION roles.

{NOTE: that link is from msNBC--see previous post of mine for who owns NBC. Then add in MS, and you've got a "news" outlet that is enjoying those tax deals with the feds.}

Here are Buchanan's own words.


"I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage - all we could have asked. ... For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every republican on earth does that."
Pat Buchanan

That link also a snippet from William Kristol.

"I admit it : The liberal media were never that powerful and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
William Kristol


For anyone who does know who Kristol is, go see the Project For The New American Century. Kristol is also a biggie in the background of conservative politics.

And speaking of Project For The New American Century, check out who has signed this outrageous thing: Cheney, Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush, Donald We-Don't-Count-The-Dead Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, etc, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Statement of Principles


Here's an excellent piece that explains, coherently and logically, how the media work. I was very glad to have found this link, because I used to have it bookmarked, but changed computers a while back and lost the link.

This article goes into good detail about how the number of owners of television stations, radio stations, newspapers and magazines have been dwindling over the years. WHY is that a problem? When you have fewer and fewer owners of news outlets, there exists the potential to "massage" the news with more precision. Why massage the news? Because they can, and it will work to the best interests of these CORPORATISTS.

The U.S. has a liberal media

A few quotes from this article, which is kind of long.

The dangers of a media monopoly

Before reviewing the statistical evidence of the media monopoly, which is undisputed even by the media themselves, we should make certain of its dangers.

The incentives for buying media organizations have long been obvious to Wall Street, which has seen vicious competition break out to capture the remaining media markets. These incentives were articulated in 1986 by Christopher Shaw, a Wall Street expert who has handled over 120 media mergers. Shaw told investors that media buy-outs would give them two things: "profitability" and "influence." (4)

MY NOTE: THAT 'INFLUENCE' IS RELATED TO THE CONCEPT OF MANUFACTURED CONSENT. WHEN AN ENTITY BUYS A MEDIA OUTLET, THEY ARE BUYING THE AUDIENCE FIRST AND FOREMOST

There is nothing inherently wrong with either profitability or influence, of course -- it's just that in a monopoly, they would be abused. [MY NOTE: I AGREE; THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH PROFITABILITY.]Consider the abuse of profits. All the usual market failures would be present in a media monopoly: the captive market, the rise in prices, the drop in quality, and the exploitation of consumers.

But significantly more troubling is the monopolization of influence. [MY NOTE: AGAIN, THAT IS MANUFACTURED CONSENT] If one person controls all information, there are no opposing viewpoints so essential to keeping public and scientific debate honest. We profoundly condemn the monopoly of information by the state, as exemplified by Joseph Goebbels' "Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment." But this danger is no less evident if a single business takes over the control of all information in society. Then all information would come from a corporate point of view, silencing the voices of workers, consumers and other citizens who are affected by corporate behavior. Democracy is based on the assumption that opposing viewpoints can be heard. If corporations could somehow eliminate or control populist debate, then we will not have a true democracy.

The potential for abuse by corporate owners is obvious. Just one example was General Electric's earlier buyout of NBC News. General Electric is the 10th largest company in the United States. It is a major Defense contractor and an international player on the world market. It is sensitive to the needs of its clients, who come from all sectors of the economy. It is also a fact that GE has suffered many a scandal throughout its history. During the Great Depression, it cut the life of its light bulbs by one-third to drive up profits. It was convicted of an illegal agreement with a German arms company during World War II. It has been convicted of fraud, fixing bids, conspiracy and tax evasion. (5) In all these cases, control of a major media outlet would have given it undue influence, whether in the market or before Congress or the courts.

Furthermore, GE has played an active role in conservative politics. Shortly after the company acquired NBC, a GE executive announced that NBC should start a political action committee to contribute money to strengthen the company's influence in Washington. Failure to cooperate, the executive said, would raise questions about the employees' "dedication to the company." (6) Later the President of NBC News clarified that its news employees would be exempt from contributing, but this hardly removes the larger conflict of interest.

It should not be surprising that these parent companies, like most big businesses and all Defense contractors, are extremely conservative. They have agendas: they desire lower taxes, fewer lawsuits from the public, fewer environmental restraints, better public relations (a euphemism for less public exposure to scandals), higher profits and more effective lobbying power in Washington. Controlling public opinion would give them all these things. Ironically, it would not be necessary for a single winner to emerge from the take-over wars. Shaw maintains that by the year 2000, all U.S. media will be in the hands of six giant corporations. Most business analysts agree with him. (7) One can safely assume that they will all have the same business and political agenda.

There is a TON of information at this link, and it is all backed up with sources. This is not an opinion piece. It is a well reasoned, factual piece, with the proper citations to note where the information comes from. Yes, it is an older piece, but things have only gotten worse since the time this was published.

If you do have time to read the article, notice Gannet is mentioned. They own USA Today--along with a boatload of other newspapers. They've got a lot on the line as far as controlling opinion, lobbying to get what they want, and yes, keeping those sweet tax deals. Notice also the evidence in this article about how small town newspapers are becoming a thing of the past. True, even where I live, we have small town newspapers, but most are not where people are getting their "news." They are little, bitty Fish Head Gazettes, now often given away at no charge in grocery stores, banks, and so on. Some appear more like "real" newspapers, but they are still NOT what people are reading to get to the real news.

Notice also the information regarding cable television. Again, this is all related--these are businesses, first and foremost. Yes, there are some exceptions, but I don't have time to go into them. They were noted by Vi upthread, or at least some of them. Basically, here's how it goes. There are INDIVIDUAL journalists and pundits who cannot be put in the same box with Hannity, Buchanan, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, etc. But they are beholden to their bosses for their jobs. True, some of them are even on the air, but start counting, for real, and you will come to the conclusion: this is a not a liberal media (specifically television).



This dwindling of information outlets also happened in Germany, starting in the 1930's in the lead up the Nazi regime. It is happening again today in Italy, where if memory serves me correctly, almost all the media outlets are owned by one man--and he either is, or was, president. This is some dangerous stuff. Anyone recall the scene from the movie Saving Private Ryan, when the guys are in a little village that has been torn apart and left in shambles and in the background you hear the Nazi propaganda on the radio: "The Statue Of Liberty is kaput!" What's the purpose of that? To keep molding minds and manipulating information. It was not so much uttered on the German radios to rally up hate for America, as much as it was to keep the people believing: WE ARE WINNING, and that was just not the case.

Some people will argue that there are FOUR, not three branches of the federal government, with the press being the fourth branch. It was certainly important enough to be mentioned in the constitutional amendments: FREE press. We're slipping here, and slipping badly. Our news is massaged in an attempt to mold our minds into going along with what these powers that be want us to think--a difference between thinking and knowing, too.


Here's what Joseph Goebbels had to say about propaganda. Who was Goebbels? Hitler's Minister Of Propaganda. At that time, the word propaganda had not yet taken on the negative connotation we have of it today. Goebbels job was pretty much like we in this country call White House Press Secretary.

"Repetition is the lynchpin of propaganda."
Joseph Goebbels

That quote is from the first link I provided, but you can find it all over the Internet. Goebbels said, and he knew what he was talking about.

So does Karl Rove. Remember Stephen Colbert and that hilarious tid bit from him? TRUTHINESS? As long as you just keep repeating something over and over again, people just think it's the truth. And why would they not?

Karl Rove knows this too.

BuzzFlash: Could Karl Rove have been as successfully politically as he’s been without television?

James Moore: No, absolutely not. Karl understands completely the value of that medium. In fact, he commented to one of our sources for Bush's Brain that he runs all of his campaigns as if people were watching television with the sound turned down. What you end up with, then, is image over substance. Consider the couple having dinner with their children at the kitchen table with the TV on across the room and the sound turned down. They look over and see a smiling President on board an aircraft carrier with "Mission Accomplished" behind him. They might think, "Oh, good. That problem’s over. We can get on with our lives." They tend to compartmentalize and put that away, trusting that if the President of the United States is saying something to them, he’s speaking the truth, and not that it’s the latest of a series of messages to sustain a fiction.



James Moore Explains Karl Rove, the Architect of Bush's Master Plan | BuzzFlash.org

DISCLAIMER: I have not read that entire article, and I don't have time. It does, however, contain the same info I have found in quotes from Rove regarding political advertising, etc, with the idea in mind that people are LOOKING at television with the sound off. I've seen that quote many times in my travels on this topic. And if you think about it . . . isn't it kind of true that so many people will have a television going almost continuously when they are at home? They're not so much watching as they are absorbing. Keep repeating the same thing, over and over again, keep blasting the same images over and over again, and this stuff will just sink into the subconscious mind. It's a good strategy, if we are talking about it without assigning a moral/ethical/safety value to it. It works, plain and simple.

If I've left out links, I apologize. I do not even have time to edit this post before I hit "submit" so if I've messed it up by not putting the links in the right place, or screwing up the formatting, I'll try to get to that later and fix them. I've got this stuff bookmarked.

Our media are not, for the most part, liberal. Individuals, some, yes. The whole machine? No way.

Click to expand...

medicineman said:

FOX, CNN, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levine, Since I don't listen to that whacko shit, I can't off the top remember what else the wingers have, but I believe there are plenty of idiot rant stations. I can't believe people sit and listen to that drivel. They must be nuts.

Click to expand...

Spitzered said:

They should be censored.

You have your drivel, others have theirs.

Click to expand...

Spitzered said:

Without a divide we become the same, and that becomes stagnant.

No I am not extremely weathly and my aspirations are more like a dream.
And its true, if the majority argue for something I generally take the other side. Its a character fault. Some things I am very opinionated about, that's true.

I actually own nothing except clothes, I sold everything back in '04 and took jobs that paid my housing and food. (overseas of course). I have traveled across the world and seen for my own eyes things that many people only speculate about. Its about a 50 50 split from truth and fiction.

I took my money and invested it overseas where growth and return is still good. I'm not old yet, (is 50 old?), so I hope to retire pretty soon. I have worked my entire life, and I want something to show for it, and giving it to the govt is not it.

And I am watching FOX news right now btw. And I have a terrible mistrust of the govt. Well anyway thats my life story in a nutshell. Kinda depressing huh?

Click to expand...

medicineman said:

Say spitzered, explain the divide here. why must we be divided. I mean are you extremely wealthy or aspire to be, or are you just a cantankerous curmudgeon like myself that gets off on harassing the other side? I have sufficient means, but I'm far from wealthy. What is your status?

Click to expand...

ViRedd said:

We are divided because the propagandists keep us divided. Its the only way they can win. Take a look at the 700-B bailout for example. The fatcats are trying to rip us ... you and me ... and everyone who posts on this site, off for billions to cover the mistakes they have made. If the Democrats can point their fingers at the Republicans, and convince you that the Republicans are at fault ... and visa-versa, we sit here fighting instead of coming together as Americans and hanging the fucks from the highest tree limb. Look, Med ... if push came to shove, and our backs were against the wall, I'd be in your corner for sure ... and I'd like to think that you'd be in my corner as well. But, if you and I both think, in error, that we are each other's enemy, we both end up rolling around on the ground trying to gain the upper hand. In the meantime, the REAL enemy has picked both of our pockets and walked away with our financial liberty.

I'm convinced that its time for American to come together to put a stop to this crap ... crap that our grandfathers and grandmothers thought was a good idea ... but turned out to be a disaster.

Its not about left and right, liberal and conservative ... not anymore it isn't. Right now, its about freedom and liberty ... we can save the bullshit for a later time.

Vi

Click to expand...