Forum Post: MSNBC's extreme liberal, Chris Matthews , accidently admits on live TV national media leans left. Then who's right?
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 26, 2011, 11:03 p.m. EST by BumpyTheBumper
(-16)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Watch the short video clip of his admission: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/25/chris_matthews_left-leaning_media_could_smash_romney.html
Checks & balances are always good. If the national media leans left then what media should balance that out and lean right?
Anyone who thinks Matthews is "extreme liberal" is so far gone there's no redemption.
I wish I could give this post 20 points.
LMAO! So true! If anything Chris is conserva-dem!
[Removed]
If you don't think he's liberal then you haven't watched liberal Matthews for the last couple of years.
liberal matthews quotes:
"The Republicans have a problem," said Matthews. "They are consumed by hate, so consumed they can't think positively of whom they may want to lead them."
Listening to Obama, “I felt this thrill going up my leg!”
" I've come to like Hillary a lot. Look, she's going out there, she stuck her neck out, she took a risk running for Senate, she had the balls to do it, she took on the job and she won. And she's a good senator - in fact, she's probably going to be the next Senate majority leader. "
"Okay. Chill and thrill, not tingle, which is the favorite word of the right wing. It's great, they love to giggle with themselves. They make up words, make fun. Words and apply them to somebody else," Matthews said about the right labeling his "thrill" as a "tingle."
“For Rush Limbaugh to haul out the word uppity, it may be a sign that his audience thinks it’s acceptable,” Matthews said. “Back when Barack Obama won in 2008, when that kind of talk was less public, he got 43 percent of white votes and that was the same level as Bill Clinton got in 1996 and higher than Al Gore got with 42 percent of whites, and John Kerry’s 41 percent of whites. But the slippage with whites was clear in the 2010 midterms, when Democrats got just 37 percent of whites and the president’s current support with whites is at 38 percent."
"It’s so interesting, because Saul Alinsky (60s radical), who I admire in so many ways..."
“I forgot Obama was black tonight for an hour…I said wait a minute, he’s an African American guy in front of a bunch of other white people…”
And on and on....
Question for you: You've been hanging around this site for a few days now, trollin. Have you seen any of us left-wing radicals quote Saul Alinsky?
I think you should post that entire quote on Alinsky by Matthews btw, where he's talking positively about Smerconish's centrism.
Those quotes show that he is a Democrat and an idiot, not an extreme liberal.
[Removed]
extreme is a matter of perspective.
The corporate media wants you to think it leans to the left.
Actually, the corporate media aims to brainwash you thereby rendering you unable to think, hence the hypnotic effects on people during Black Friday.
"Must camp out. Must by X-Box. Must by TV. Must purchase. Must purchase. Must purchase......
"Must by X-Box" = Must BUY X-Box
Totally embarrassing. I will punish my keyboard at once!
Must OCCUPY everything!
I only wish the national media leaned left and had a conscience to tell the truth,. The National Media is owned by the corps. They lean as directed.
Interestingly, I recently read an investment article that showed it's ALWAYS good to invest in media companies during presidential election years; they book elections as revenue just like they book the Olympics. They also go out of their way to make sure every race is heavily contended... no good for them of the World Series lasts only 3 games, much better it it lasts 7 games. This all means that any effort to get the money out of politics is going to be a rough ride... they media companies are the RECIPIENTS of a lot of the cash, and they aren't going to be endorsing it's removal. [Sigh].
the national media leans right by a wide margin, no matter what an oligarch like chris mathews says.. by the way? extreme liberal? lol. That guy is a moderate and an opportunist. REALITY leans left, the right is composed of lies.
the TRUTH is way left of of chris mathews.
Not true at all. Most media outlets lean to the left. Fox News is pretty much the only major news outlet with a very obvious Right leaning tone.
Thats ludicrous, and does not fit with actual reality. Name one news outlet that leans to the left. Even MSNBC is to the right of reality.
claiming that it is so to repeat the long standing mythology of the far right is only that. Objective facts tell us that the corporations that operate and own the media are being run by the far right propaganda machine.
Scientific polling has shown that the majority of reporters and editors self-identify as liberal.
Until there is counter-evidence you're free to believe as you wish but it does go against what the evidence points to.
what reporters identify as is one thing. WHO OWNS THE MEDIA is the other thing.
When we look at who owns the media is quite clearly the far right that owns the media, the reporters and editors do what they are told, so the ACTUAL evidence again reflects that the majority of media are leaning far right.
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/who-owns-the-media-the-6-monolithic-corporations-that-control-almost-everything-we-watch-hear-and-read
http://www.freepress.net/resources/ownership
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/owners.html
http://www.corporations.org/media/
http://mediaowners.com/
http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main
So self identification isn't "actual" evidence? I am willing to accept your position as having influence yet you dismiss mine outright and somehow you believe this makes you reasonable in discussion?
While owners may have some direction of stories of large importance (when the owners take an interest) the majority of stories will be crafted using what the reporter and editor assume to be baselines (but are in fact baseline's for them). This causes most of the messages in the media to have left leaning tilt since it assumes a more left position as default. This is likely through no grand conspiracy but simply the way the human mind works. This is especially true when surrounded with like minded thinkers and echo chambers and groupthink can start to play roles.
I don't believe the owners care often about injecting their political bias into the everyday story. I believe they care about profit first and their political desires only intercede in only the most important of personal causes to them - which would mean rarely.
these are the facts. what the media actually gets written down, or on the air, or out to the public is slanted vastly to the far right. What actually happens is a constant drift, in which propaganda con scam right wing liars and con artists and con scammers SLANT the current center to say its left, and then distort the reality of 30 percent of the population so that they IMAGINE a slant which does not exist simply because REALITY does not conform with the LIES AND BS.
This is FACT, this is not opinion, this is what actual formal logic and systems theory and attention to detail tell us. The CORPORATE OWNED MEDIA represents CORPORATE OLIGARCHY, follow the money, this is a no brainer.
The idea that the media is slanted left is simply a ludicrous patent lie, mumbled by professional liars like rush limbo and etc other right wing pundits, but having nothing to do with the actual reality.
IF you had bothered to READ the links provided, you would SEE THAT THIS IS SIMPLE FACT.
I do not disagree with your premise. I disagree with the assumptions made in your argument following your premise.
on what grounds? there aren't any sane grounds on which to disagree with any of that; i just told you all HOW it actually is.
You've presented the facts that back up your premise - that the media is controlled by a select few of individuals. I do not disagree with this.
Your conclusion is : therefore all the news made by those media companies has a bias to the right.
I disagree with that conclusion because it is not the owner's who have most interaction with the news - it is the editors and journalists themselves and a large majority of them 80% self-identify as liberal.
As I've shown that your conclusion does not necessarily follow from your premise there is much room for disagreement.
The inherent balance of the right and the left hinges on the elites con scamming most people as sheeple. Only lucids have genuine awareness or thus free will, everyone else is sleepwalking inside of the meta programs grafted into them by the system.
The "Right" is just the representation of the elites in the political system and the "Left " is the smoke and mirrors con scam representation of the "Masses" or proles or ie; the other two parts of the caste system; middle class, and poor.
What happens is in fact the elites are solely in control of BOTH sides and so the actual Drift is deeply to the right because the people are not actually represented.
When you stand outside of the box, its clear that the entire game is rigged to cage sheeple in the right side of the box, and then anybody who leaves the flock in some sort of reverse engineered and then dumble downed false flag rebellion movement.
Theres 50 of those movements in play, from anarchy to atheism to republicanism to communism to socialism, the curious thing is that all of those ISMS when closely examined are also skewed to the right ; they are systemic control systems based in ideology; not truth, not fact, not reason, just a mental idea of how things "Should BE" and then everything else as consequence of those judgements. No research, no "think tanks". When we say the word " think tank" realize that an entity called a think tank like say PNAC doesn't do any thinking, it simply proceeds forth in an entropic tumble from its starting core axioms that war and greed are good for elites and that the rest of us are entitled only to go to hell.
It does not think; it only perpetuates a propaganda con scam into some kind of actual global plan for world dominance, and takes us down the road of social and civil entropy unconsciously.
So your frames of reference are skewed by your attachments to the sub orbitals.
My frames of reference are outside of the box, and i can tell you the grand con scams central nexxus is right wing thinking; and thats the actual drift of all the media which long ago abandoned the "REAL" middle for far rightwing lunatic land.
This has nothing to do with the argument as you've stated it. I stand by my reasoning and critique of your argument. Ownership does not define presentation in the media. It may be an input (and I won't argue against it being one) but it is not the only input (which invalidates your argument) nor do I find it to be the most major input (arguable).
again, the content is what is most important, and the content is skewed right.
Dude, CNN leans to the left so much that it's owner Ted Turner married Jane Fonda. CBS News, New York Times, NBC, and ABC.
Let's make this argument real simple. If we were to tak a quick glance at the financial contributions these media outlets have made toward the two major political parties in the year 2008. The Democratic Party received a total donation of $1,020,816, from three major broadcast television networks (NBC, CBS, ABC), while the Republican Party received only $142,863.
Because the Democrats aren't left. Full stop. They are a little left of the right-wing insanity that is the GOP, but they are still right of anything that used to pass for center.
The sum of their parties planks is to the left for the mean and mode of America.
That makes them left for the purposes of this discussion.
Wow,.. you must be super duper left.
Nope, just an FDR/Keynesian liberal. I don't see any politicians that represent that though, except perhaps Elizabeth Warren.
Hows that Keynesianism working out for ya?
"In the long run we are all dead." - well it's the long run now.
I wouldn't know. We haven't had consistent Keynesianism since the 70s. Hence the debt, the helicopter bailouts, trickle-down failure, the lack of real stimulus, the corporate handouts, the free trade agreements unto death, etc.
To quote one of the last real conservative presidents, Richard Nixon " We are all Keynesians now" http://members.forbes.com/global/1999/0222/0204077a.html
Here is anouther good article and below is an excerpt.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/03/fiscal-responsibility-party-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
"The Republican Party's elders derided this burgeoning "supply-side" view. Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas always enjoyed telling a good news/bad news joke about the supply-siders: The good news was that a bus full of them went off a cliff; the bad news was that there were three empty seats."
Alas, the supply siders hijacked the GOP, Sorry world : (
I am certainly not one. It is killing us. Its just bubble formation to replace bubble collapse. No stable savings means no stable investment. Manipulative interest rates screw with market signals of production.
Supply side or demand side - both are missing half the picture.
Well, though Keynesianism does cause bubbles, this housing crash wasn't a 'keynesian' bubble, it was a 'fraud' bubble.
When bankers relabeled 14 TRILLION in junk bonds as Aaa, it was FRAUD. And the resulting crash is a loss of confidence(rightly) in the current banking system.
We haven't had keynesism for 12 years. Which is austerity during boom times (clinton surpluses) and spending during down times ( Reagan military spending)
Instead Bush gave us LARGE deficits during boom times, and the GOP is pushing austerity all around the country now. This is the anti-keynesian model, the supply-side tax cut FARCE.
We've had free trade and low taxes for 12 years, and the american economy has been hollowed out.
How's supply-side working out for ya...
Artificially low interest rates created the bubble - Greenspan admitted it on tour for his book that he planned to create a housing bubble to reinvigorate the market after the IT crash. He didn't factor in the moral hazard created by Fannie and Freddie and the political pressure based on the idea that people have a "right to their own house".
We don't have a free market, we haven't had one for almost 100 years. Not even close to one. If you think this is a free market you've been sold a bag of magic beans my friend. We have economic fascism which is what OWS rightly fights against. Calling it capitalism is like calling the USSR Marxism - absolutely and fundamentally wrong.
I don't know why you think supply-side is my thing - especially after my last comment stating that both supply and demand are missing half of the economic picture.
Actually inequality created the bubble. The middle class has been squeezed into greater and greater debt, and so were susceptible to predatory lending practices and becoming overleveraged.
Fannie/Freddie, whatever. I can provide arguments against that - in that these were better regulated than commercial entitites and did not back sub-primes, but not the point.
Them not underwriting sub primes only lessened the amount of negative impact they had - it didn't prevent the moral hazard from existing.
It doesn't matter if they were better regulated than X what matters is they provided a moral hazard that encouraged bad lending practices.
Inequality doesn't create bubbles. Bubbles are encouraged through mis-allocation of resources and the crash is the wake up call to those responding to false inputs such as a commanded interest rate.
It does matter. They did not underwrite subprime loans, and so any moral hazard they created is unrelated to them. Further, by 2003, Fannie/Freddie-backed mortgage share had fallen from 80%+ to 50% or less - and their loans were the less risky ones.
Dean Baker, who, by the way, identified the bubble in 2002, disagrees about inequality:
http://www.thenation.com/article/36891/right-prescription-ailing-economy
Sorry, didn't realize you were a libertarian, here's how I 'agree' with ya
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-libertarianism-is-so-wonderful/
"the national media leans right by a wide margin" Bullshit!! Give me names of people in your so warped opinion, who truly are Leftists,people leaning way Left.
Seriously, you should consider pulling your head of of Rush Limbaugh's...
You'll get nothing but the corporate perspective from any mainstream media. Corporations are, by their nature, of the right. They are profit-centric, market-centric entities. The left is not uber friendly with those things - at best it's a tolerance of necessary evil. Now, since the 90s, democrats have been almost as much the corporate party as the republicans, and so they've garnered substantial corporate support from companies like GE, hence MSNBC. That is NOT because those corporations are leftist, but because democrats have moved towards the corporate (neoliberal) right.
I know, it's all too much for your brain, and you'll just have to respond with some personal attack. It's ok. I forgive you in advance.
[Removed]
I think life is too much for your brain liberal looselyhuman. I think you and lot of the posters are teenagers just trying to cause trouble.
The things you say are your opinion which you don't attempt to support with fact. For example, "Corporations are, by their nature, of the right." How the fuck do you know? Just because they want to make profit?
So gay bars lean right?
CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC promote the homosexual agenda, illegal immigration, political correctness, and the view that everyone is oppressed by the white man. The facts? Look at their reporting.
I'm sorry you're still fighting the culture war. From your reactionary perspective, I can see how the media seems liberal. The whole nation is socially liberal compared to you, pal, including the audience for all the corporations that advertise on these corporate media outlets. Get over it.
I like the projection of "nazi" in your handle. I assume you're a white nationalist, based on your rhetoric. Don't you guys have another name, too?
Right wing extremists tend to see everyone else as liberal, themselves as normal.
No names? Come on,if you're going to try to redefine what is Liberal and now create this "neo-Liberal" definition you should really give yourself credence by naming names. This is so typical of the Left when one label becomes too negative you switch to a new one and re-brand yourself.
So pay attention this time.
If Obama is no longer a Liberal,who then is?
Who is now according to you a true "Liberal" or who is in your opinion a real Leftist?
If you want to relabel what it is to be "Left" give some examples.
There aren't many liberals left, that's the point. The liberal consensus (FDR/Keynes) of the 40s-70s has been replaced with the neoliberal/Washington consensus (Reagan/Friedman) of the 80s-present. Democrats and Republicans alike. Many Republicans have gone farther to the right in the form of neoconservatism and Tea Party/Ron PauI libertarianism. The political spectrum has shifted, at least as far as politicians go. I believe there is still a large, unrepresented liberal population though. We are disenfranchised.
Name a politician that shares the policy positions of FDR, or even Kennedy or Eisenhower. There are a few, Sherrod Brown, perhaps, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren... Dennis Kucinich and Alan Grayson are more Huey Long types than FDR.
Name one that "welcomes their hatred" when it comes to corporations and bankers. Again, perhaps Elizabeth Warren.
Shall I go on?
I see Kennedy as a staunch anticommunist, pro civil rights, tax cutting president.
Nothing illiberal about that, but the tax-cutting (rhetoric - as RogerDee points out, these taxes didn't actually come down until LBJ) was misguided and set us on the trend that culminated with Reagan and Bush and the massive inequality and imminent loss of the middle class we now face.
He was also for the social contract and civic duty (as opposed to the anti-government "government is the problem" neoliberalism of the present), and don't forget the big-government Apollo program and New Frontier, a solid extension of New Deal policy. He was a central figure in the 40s-70s liberal consensus.
"[If a 'Liberal' is]...someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I’m proud to say I’m a 'Liberal'"
"The problems of man are man-made; they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable-and we believe they can do it again."
That is liberalism.
I'll admit he was a moderate liberal, similar to Eisenhower. :)
JFK cut the top rate of income taxes, ah no, LBJ cut taxes from 91% to 70% in 1964.
I agree.
70% sounds pretty fair.
One should remember that we gave back more than half in deductions and exemptions for investing incountry, this was basically jobs stimulus. In 1980 we taxed @70% but the effective rate was about 33%, tax breaks equaled jobs stim.
So more loopholes is your position??
Pretty sad.
Historical fact.
The historical fact is that our effective tax rates have been at a long historic low since 2003.
That's 8 fucking years of HISTORIC LOWS!!
Obviously, reducing taxes only stimulates for the very short-term while in the long-term, we plunged into high unemployment, and near-depression, while historic deficits from lack of revenue drive us further into debt.
Overall effective rates have been low since about 1986, not 2003.
What we did in the New Deal: I explain using tax policy as job stimulus here http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/12/1015409/-Taxing-the-rich-promotes-smart-investments,-not-class-warfare
Really didnt have the flavor of LBJ (war on poverty) Kennedy is probably closest where i sit. Loved the space program , in favor of basic research. I admire kennedy alot, there really isnt an comparable modern politician.
Yeah, I think that's just it...
LBJ's pandering aside, you didn't have to seem like a raving lefty to be a liberal then. It was a liberal political environment and a liberal (economic-wise) society. We had good relative equality embodied in a thriving and growing middle class - thanks to FDR's legacy which was still very much alive.
A centrist like Kennedy was still a liberal. Now anyone supporting the policies he supported, and even extended, would be deemed a socialist. Same with Eisenhower, even Nixon.
FDR is not just a socialist, but now a fascist I'm told...
That is what people think of liberals now, and is part of why there are so few of them left. So they're all free-market neoliberals now.
Exactly.
[Removed]
When was it that JFK cut taxes?
JFK cut taxes? When in 1964?
Yeah, he took the top marginal rate from 91 down to 65 or so I believe. Not his finest hour IMO.
No. LBJ cut the top rate on income taxes from 91% to 70% in 1964.
JFK was talking about doing the same thing, but JFK also talked tuff on COmmunism, while in serious arms control talks with the USSR. I am not convinced that JFK would have cut taxes, just because he talked about it.
Fair enough. Thanks. I think you're right - it's something I read in a speech of his, that later became a reality under LBJ...
I corrected in my larger blurb above.
Yes, JFK did speak about cutting taxes, UR right, no doubt. But as I said JFK talked tuff on Communism, but we know P. Salinger meet with Khrushchev's man to discuss reduction of Nuclear weapons.
I realize I am speculating that JFK might not have cut taxes, the fact remains taxes were cut after he was shot. :~ )
Top rates: http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf
You might enjoy this, I address how tax policy was used to stimulate job creation in years past.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/12/1015409/-Taxing-the-rich-promotes-smart-investments,-not-class-warfare
Nice! Good to have you here. Plenty of misinformation to fight.
I personally think taxes should be based on the lauffer curve? 0 taxes for the first quartile, 15 for the second quartile 30 for the third 50 for over 75 and 75 for the top 90. An independent commission should adjust these numbers realative to base to produce the maximum growth in the economy overtime using statistical techniques. Also there should be a strict law on how much land an individual or corporation can own in this country; less than 3 sq miles.
4 brackets cannot describe a geometric curve required by an effective progressive income tax system. WE need 15-20 brackets to effectively make taxes progressive.
I disagree but maybe it should be studied.
One cannot describe a 90 degree curve with 4 data points.
DO you know how many tax brackets we have right now?
Do you know what the most brackets we've had for income tax?
I'd have to see how that played out, revenue and inequality wise. It doesn't sound much like Reaganomics but I know Laffer was a big supply-sider, so I'm skeptical.
Interesting thoughts on property. Why 3 sq. miles? Is that a function of population, or?
Have you seen: http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent
Resources that are limited should have restricted ownership. The land ownership limits should be tied to the average price of land. When the price increases land ownership is restricted more, when the price decreases land ownership less. Grandfather purchased land for the life of the owner or when land is sold. Except for the initial 3 mile limit, excess land needs to be sold or transfered.
I decided consistent revenue for the government is more important a target of 3 percent real growth in revenue should be sought taxes adjusted accordingly. This is fluctuates in revenue effect the ability to pay off the debt which is a huge drag on the economy. Real growth in government spendining should be between 1 and 2 percent until the deficit is payed off.
If it were based on the Laffer curve, wouldn't the top bracket end up paying the same rate as the bottom bracket.
It is a bell curve.
Well im talking average marginal tax rates, thinking now that tax cuts/increases should be based on quarterly revenue estimates. To meet a 3 percent real growth in government revenue year over year. If government revenue grows over 3 percent real taxes should automatically be cut. If not they should be raised. This would allow more effecient planning.
I do believe there is a point when average taxation impedes growth. Land and other resources have scarcity limits so it makes since to cap individual ownership
I think I misinterpreted you completely. You meant, by using the Laffer Curve, to increase and decrease as to maximize revenue. If that's the case, I agree. That's how Reagan's Tax Cuts were sold, so they(supply-siders) can either accept that we are too far to the left of the curve, or admit, under oath, that they are lying scumbags that were helping their rich friends for campaign contributions.
Neo-Conservatism isn't "too the right". It is increases the collective via its foreign and monetary policies - it does not decrease it - therefore it is to the left of American Conservatism.
I don't give a shit where in the circle of political or economic theory you want to try to fit neconservatism
they built the biggest embassy in the world - in Baghdad - W.I.T.H. S.L.A.V.E. L.A.B.O.R.!!
It is most assuredly un-American. They wish to use force to compel people to live as they choose to live - the absolute antithesis of a free society.
Militarism is definitely a "right" thing. Sorry.
Hardly. North Korea invading South. China invading Tibet. USSR invading Afghanistan.
All of them known for the militarism and love of parades of weaponry.
That false political scale you're trying to use to measure doesn't really work all that well when examined with any rigor at all.
The authoritarian (militarism being a function of this IMO) aspect of those regimes is of the right, in my opinion. Or we can go Nolan, which takes authoritarianism out of the left/right equation, but I tend to see Stalinism as left only in its egalitarianism, but right in its authoritarianism. Obviously we can't agree but I stand by it.
In other words, I disagree, undermining your (implied) claim to objectivity.
It is only because you are attempting to use as a political measuring tape what is a broken tool. So those regimes were centrist in government (half left and half right) - do you think that is really an accurate measure of them?
The only true measure of a government is in the amount of forced collectivism it engages in. The more force used the more to the left it is, the less it uses the more to the right - the absence of force is pure rightist anarchy the full use of force for everything (closest we have is North Korea) is full denial of property rights under a non-Marxist form of Communism (lets go with Maoism).
Now anarchy is of the right? So the linear spectrum is OK for your ridiculous utterances then?
I'll let any number of left-wing anarchists argue with you if they care to.
But I will just point out that what seperates traditional left anarchism from the right anarcho-capitalist variety is the authority of the state to exert violence in defense of property rights.
Individualism to forced collectivism. Right to left.
Anarchy is the lack of government and government is the legal use of coercive force. If you have an anarchist that promotes the use of coercive force they aren't an anarchist.
If there is a "state" then it can't be anarchy.
Take that up with anarcho-capitalists.
"Anarcho-capitalists only accept collective defense of individual liberty (i.e., courts, military or police forces) insofar as such groups are formed and paid for on an explicitly voluntary basis."
It's still the state, voluntary or not.
How does "society" have goals when individual members have conflicting goals?
My point that coercive force in the creation of police means that there is a state.
As I already pointed out a group is free to self-associate, self-fund, and self-name. Just as the patriot act isn't indicative of being patriotic just because a group like that calls themselves a court doesn't mean it is indicative of a state.
Just nonsense.
If it is voluntary then there is no coercive use of force.
Any group is free to self-associate or self-fund under anarchy. They can also call themselves whatever they want - court, military, - giant space lizards from Meebo Prime. As an individual in anarchy is free to seek restitution and punishment on someone who has violated their rights or to defend themselves against an attempted violation of their rights - so would these groups of self-association.
If it is voluntary it cannot be a state. States are not tools of voluntary cooperation they are systems that use force to get what they want.
If there is no coercive use of force then what exactly is it that police do? The position is voluntary agreement to a society where there is coercive use of force to further society's goals. There's a social contract now, but basically Rothbard is arguing for a social contract that you have to sign, or it doesn't apply to you. I think the whole thing is silly, but you're not making sense even within that framework.
Here: http://stason.org/TULARC/ideology/libertarian/39-Libertarian-Evangelistic-Arguments-Part-2.html
Whatever you say. At the point in which there's a formal court system, military, police.. It's a state.
Oops, looks like me, you and human are arguing from same point of view.
Believe you me, human would Rather have true conservatism, than what we have today. We all agree that what we have is NOT conservatism.
But you have to also realize, it isn't liberalism either.
I'm conservative, but would rather have liberalism over what we have today.
True conservative Presidents were eisenhower, nixon, and to an extent reagan. They built the interstate hiway, created EPA and broke up AT&T. These are things none of the current GOPers would do.
True liberal presidents were FDR, Truman, and Kennedy. They stood up to corporations, created massive gov't work programs, and tried to create a single payer health system (not a gov't handout to insurers)
These are things the current crop of 'liberals' will also not do.
They are all corrupt corpratist whores.
I am a Classical Liberal - best represented today by the monicker libertarian. We want economic freedom and social freedom - the same that the Founders wanted. Government "make work" programs are harmful to the economy as are any command economic functions. The EPA is a horribly abusive creature that never should have been formed as Reagan said "Government isn't the solution it is the problem". There existed enough power for Federal courts to decide pollution cases where pollution crossed state boundaries. No new department needed to be formed.
looslelyhuman didn't create the term neoliberal. He's just a lot more well informed than you are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Marcy Kaptur of ohio is a liberal, elizabeth warren is too. Bernie sanders is an ultra-liberal. But Obama never was a liberal, any more than George Bush was a conservative.
With Obama care, the program is administered by insurance companies, this is not liberal, it's neoliberalism.
With Bush's prescription drug plan, it is the drug companies that set prices, this is not conservative, it's neoconservatism/ neoliberalism. And the fact that both were not paid for, but put on a credit card is also neoconservative/neoliberal.
Neoconservatism and neoliberalism are the two faces of the same jackass. That's why BOTH parties have expanded government.
Both parties have let that expansion be administered by private corps. Both parties call for free-for-all trade.
Both parties deregulate. And when we find out why regulations were there in the first place, both parties give PUBLIC funds to PRIVATE companies to keep them solvant, this is by NO MEANS conservative or liberal.
It's neoliberalism or call it neoconservatism, or even supply sided, trickle down, screw the little guy economics.
Point is Obama never was liberal, just as bush never was conservative, this is why we just go further into the hole bush made.
I'll agree both parties have had a hand in sinking the ship but this label of "neo" this and "neo" that is bullshit. Yeah Bush was no real conservative but Obama is and has been Liberal. Re-labeling like this is stupid.
Ho humm, guess I'm gonna have to reconstruct a post I did earlier
Obama believes health care should be admin by insurers, Liberals DON'T
Obama handed trillions to private CORPS, Liberals wouldn't
Obama believes in free for all trade. Liberals DO NOT
Obamas stimulus was in the form of a payroll TAX CUT. Liberal Presidents of the past stimulated the economy through WORKS programs.
It's not a relabeling, dems and gop corpratists already did that over past 30-40 years. This is how BOTH parties have persued policies of concentrating wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands.
And it is this trend that libertarianism will only excellerate.
What OWS is calling for is to bring back 'classical' conservatism and liberalism, not the rebranded crap we got today, and certainly not the RP lunacy that libertarians want.
Amen.
I would only say that, unfortunately, "classical liberal" has been hijacked by libertarians. I prefer "traditional liberal" I guess.
[Removed]
That is the most asinine thing I have ever read on this site. And that is saying something.
i notice you have no content and no argument just an ad hom. lacking an argument against my argument, that leaves me as winning, and you as unable to address the issue.
Yeah... You are winning......
yes, yes i am.
http://www.zimbio.com/Michele+Bachmann/articles/3E-b16-t233/Republicans+detached+political+reality
http://schultzstake.blogspot.com/2011/02/detached-reality-and-altered-states-gop.html
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474980816588
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/poll-confirms-republicans-ignorant/blog-357095/
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/11/23/keep-em-barefoot-and-ignorant-house-republicans-on-public-access-to-climate-data-science/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/05/obama-republicans-take-pride-in-being-ignorant/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081010171115AADP76h
a bunch of links is evidence that you're "winning"?
wow, ows finds a new reality-denying low every 5 minutes.
hilarious!
your inability to put those links in context is the actual low here.
your belief that the info in those links matters to anyone in the reality-based community is so laughable.
but as long as you really think there is some kind of profound difference between the dems and the reps, I've got a totally awesome bridge to sell you. and--today only--I can give you a super discount.
there is a difference. The republicans are EVIL and the dems are merely evil.
republicans are IGNORANT and dems are just ignorant.
which is why we need a third party, and one more reason why you are preaching to choir and missing the point. Im 1000 steps ahead of you.
"reality based community" LOL. yes please, do join that.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/THE_99%25_POLITICAL_PARTY
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ
http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-new-wiki/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/
the difference is negligible. that you want to make hay about the difference between a slap and a smack is telling.
as for 1000 steps, don't make me laugh. I haven't voted for a dem or a rep in over 20 years.
the difference is significant. The republicans only represent corruption and corporate power. The dems sometimes TRY to represent the people. Being ignorant and immersed in corruption doesn't help them, but I feel pretty sure obama would veto that senate bill calling for the USA military to start identifying internal targets inside the USA.. or etc.
Maybe i'm wrong and only time will tell, but there are some things dems won't stoop to.
you didn't bother to click the links, obviously, you just interjected and hit the post button.
"The dems sometimes TRY to represent the people"
about that bridge...
"you didn't bother to click the links" - what would be the point? it isn't like I haven't seen the same old shit 1000 times before. both parties suck, both are bought and paid for. pop culture says the dems are the "cool" ones, so you give them a little extra. that is gullible beyond belief.
its not pop culture, its simple fact. When you measure objectively what the dems do and what the repubs do, its rather obvious that theres a godzilla sized demon on the one hand and a smurf sized demon on the other.
Your mind is shut closed, and so you are a useful idiot to the entropy and the oligarchs, and you are part of the problem.
There is an objective truth here, and that objective truth is that the dems are far less sinister than the repubs. However, the links you didn't bother to click because your mind is closed are linking to things like "form a new party" to get away from BOTH the parties.
So you are arguing as a pwn and a tool for entropy and not even understanding that we in essence agree on that point.
"its not pop culture, its simple fact."
no, it's your opinion, obviously swayed by pop culture and a need to be cool.
that you think it is a fact is a joke.
that I say both suck and are useless and then you tell me I am a tool of the oligarchs says a lot about how your self-esteem centered education has failed you every step of the way.
any plans on growing up? or is that simply out of the question?
no, its objective factual reality, i don't do opinion, i do science and formal logic and analysis. Trying to say i care about being "cool" is ludicrous since everything i do is fact orientated and i go against the grain pretty much everywhere because of that.
You are a tool of the oligarchs as you continue to try to attack me, as you continue to spread noise, as you try to tell people who have facts that their facts are mere opinion, and etc. thats reality. deal.
I AM the grown up around here, and i am the one doing the grown up work while people like you just troll as useful idiots, not even realizing you are attacking the people making sense.
Any plans on waking up and stop making plays off sides?
I grew up, i was more lucid than you are by the time i was 10.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/THE_99%25_POLITICAL_PARTY
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ
http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-new-wiki/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/
I bow to your superior brainwashing.
right, i think you just want the last word, despite being defeated.
lets start somewhere where you can cross a bridge. the dems are also reality challenged, the "left" is detached from reality in a different direction and not so far... but BOTH camps are detached from reality.
You're wasting your time trying to argue with MVSN. In the numerous comments I've read from him (or her) over the last few days, two overriding aspects pervade; sarcasm and lack of critical thought. Absolutely nothing substantial to add to the dialog.
I agree with that. But what is your point?
Reality leans left.
That's why the right needs a dedicated "news" station to spew the slanted vitriol.
Objectivity wouldn't serve that purpose.
Reality leans to the center. It's just that in the US the center has been moved and is now so far over on the right many people think Hitler was a leftist (I'm not kidding!)
I'm not sure they really believe Hitler was a leftist, but they keep saying it and all you have to do is keep saying something for it to become an effective smear tactic. Even if it is patently ridiculous.
Funnily enough, it was Goebbels who said:
"If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth."
and that tactic has become an integral part of the Karl Rove playbook.
I know, they probably don't. I was just highlighting the topsy-turvy, whacko Alice in Wonderland nature of the kind of stuff they keep spouting. I don't think any of them really believe some of it (like Hitler was a leftist) but I think it goes deeper than just smearing, I think the whole point is to keep the followers disconnected from reality. They may know it isn't real and think it's just a cool smear tool ... but ... if they know its not real, do they know what is?
There really are a lot of people who think that Hitler was a leftist. There is even a book called "Liberal Fascism" that attempts to make this concept seem intellectually defensible to historically illiterate people.
This is what Orwell was talking about with the inversion of reality. If you constantly assert the opposite of what is true, if you muddy the waters so much people don't know up from down, you avoid the dangers of a population capable of critical thought.
Defense attorneys sometimes do this. It's called "Accuse the accuser" so no one knows who to trust or what is real.
Quite the head-trip really. This is another one of their crimes, abusing their follower's psychological well-being like this. I happen to know of a few whose whole "the only ethics are no ethics" trip has led them to some serious family and personal problems as well - they simply aren't able to relate to other people on a human level in their personal lives. And some of the kids raised in such environments. Oh. My. God.
It is your opinion that reality leans left. How much of the world have you visited and experienced in your journey through reality?
If your opinion were fact then what happened in the 2010 elections? Why do Republicans still exist? What will you say after the 2012 elections?
I bet you can count the countries you've visited on one finger.
I for one have visited dozens of countries; and just because many of them lean right for the protection of their privileged classes, it does not mean that the people in those countries are right leaning. Is "the Golden Rule" a right leaning concept? Did Jesus lean right? Did Gandhi? Did Buddha? Let's face it, the only people who lean right are the selfish, the greedy, and the bitter.
" Rabbi Haim of Romshishok was an itinerant preacher. He traveled from town to town delivering religious sermons that stressed the importance of respect for one’s fellow man. He often began his talks with the following story:
horrifying. Row after row of tables were laden with platters of sumptuous food, yet the people seated around the tables were pale and emaciated, moaning in hunger. As I came closer, I understood their predicament.
could not bend either elbow to bring the food to his mouth. It broke my heart to hear the tortured groans of these poor people as they held their food so near but could not consume it.
witnessed in Hell – row after row of long tables laden with food. But in contrast to Hell, the people here in Heaven were sitting contentedly talking with each other, obviously sated from their sumptuous meal.
splinted on wooden slats that prevented him from bending his elbows. How, then, did they manage to eat?
he stretched across the table and fed the person across from him! The recipient of this kindness thanked him and returned the favor by leaning across the table to feed his benefactor.
The critical difference is in the way the people treat each other.
whispered in the ear of one starving man, "You do not have to go hungry. Use your spoon to feed your neighbor, and he will surely return the favor and feed you."
angrily. 'I would rather starve than give him the pleasure of eating!'
deserves to go to Hell."
Best story I've heard in a long time. Too bad it's asted on the Christian Conservatives who infest this board.
For the last time, we do not support Obama or the democrats. WE ARE PROTESTING BOTH CORPORATE PARTIES.
I support Dennis Kucinich's call for Obama's impeachment.
27 here. At this juncture, ours is the most right-wing nation on the planet.
Chris Matthews is the least liberal person on MSNBC, and liberal in the US does not mean the left. FreeSpeachTV is the left. MSNBC is the democrats.
Liberal in the US does mean center-left (think FDR). It's just that most democratic politicians since the 90s are actually neoliberals, even though they use liberal rhetoric, just like most republicans are neoliberals - but their rhetoric is more consistent with their neoliberalism... Confusing, for sure.
I tried to explain this a while ago.
It's my belief, that after RP lost as a libertarian in '88', the libertarians found ways to co-opt both parties.
Their influence is much stronger on the conservative side, but can be seen in the liberals these days too.
This is evidenced by the neoliberal economics they both practice.
Neoliberal is an international scheme, and every libertarian I know is fairly isolationist
I tend to agree with this. Both are part of the libertarian free-market spectrum though. Chicago/Austrian economics. The internationalist/isolationist split is real though.
Fairly good explanation. The old Liberal Party from 1920's-1930's is long gone, yes there actually was a viable Liberal Party back then, as well as a Socialist Party, and Communist Party.
I would say that the Dems started moving right earlier than the 1990's, late 70's early 80's. But otherwise a well writing comment.
Liberal in the US is equivalent to right wing in most European countries. Regardless of how they define themselves, they are still center right in actuality.
Except for Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough, of course.
I think society as a whole leans left. Most people are not greedy Wall Street traders or bankers or CEOs. Most people just want to live a modest life and not judge others. Most people are not consumed by greed and corruption but would rather just lead a simple life where we can all get along.
Why does there need to be a counterbalance?
Wow! Why does there need to be a counterbalance? How much education do you have?
Left means liberal, not rich and greedy. Do a Google search of how many millionaires there are in Congress and then note the members' party affiliation.
What makes you think society as a whole leans left? Are you a Ph.D in sociology? What life experiences do you have under your belt that would make you say that?
If we don't need a counterbalance then we don't need democracy.
I have a PhD in Computer Engineering thank you. And I am frankly too tired to bother responding.
Not too tired to lie huh liberal? I didn't ask who you wish you were. I asked other questions in an attempt to understand your logic.
One part of the dilemma noted by Edgewater up above, is that some of you actually think "Democrat" means "leftist" or even "liberal".
Those three terms are not interchangeable.
I don't know about the leftist term, but liberals are a branch of the Democrat party. liberals are not the opposite of Conservatives. What is the opposite of burning the flag?
liberals are part of the Leftist Machine: liberals, Democrats, RINOs (Neocons), progressives, and socialists.
The Leftist Machine has controlled CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN, Hollywood, and politics for decades.
sadly, you don't know what you're talking about. You're simply sloganeering.
"What is the opposite of burning the flag?"
Who burns flags? Chris Matthews? Millionaires in Congress? Barack Obama?
What does flag burning have to do with anything we are discussing here or even with what YOU posted in the original topic up there ^^???
Give it up. To many here are thoroughly brainwashed by the Left. Which n their world is better than being brainwashed by the Right. Oh, and Chris Mathews is Obamas number one butt boy. If he could he would have the Presidents baby.
"the natioinal media that leans a little to the left could smash him"
Is Chris as extreme as Dennis or Bernie ?
Why do the ritewingnuts always exaggerate and lie ?
Evolution is a theory. The universe is 6000 years old.
Because their lemmings BELIEVE -
The PublicMind poll by Farleigh Dickinson University
in New Jersey showed that of all the news channels out there,
Fox News viewers are the least informed.
People were asked questions about news habits and current events in a statewide poll of 600 New Jersey residents. Results showed that viewers of Sunday morning news shows were the most informed about current events, while Fox News viewers were the least informed.
In fact, FDU poll results showed they were even less informed than those who say they don’t watch any news at all and they were also less likely than any other group analyzed to have forms of higher education.
Readers of The New York Times, USA Today and listeners to National Public Radio were better informed about international events than other media outlets.
In one major example, New Jersey poll participants were questioned about the outcome of the so-called Arab Spring uprisings in North Africa earlier in the year. Non-Fox News viewer statistics showed 53% know that Egyptians were successful in overthrowing dictator Mubarak.
48% know that the Syrian uprising has thus far been unsuccessful in ousting Assad. But Fox News viewers showed 37% know that Egyptians overthrew their government 42% know that Syrians have not yet overthrown their government thus suggesting a daily dose of sound bytes from CNN at the gym, and headlines from Google News were enough to surpass what average Fox viewers knew about current events.
“Because of the controls for partisanship, we know these results are not just driven by Republicans or other groups being more likely to watch Fox News,” said Dan Cassino, a professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson and an analyst for the PublicMind Poll. “The results clearly prove that there is something about watching Fox News that fundamentally leads people to be mis-informed – even compared to those who don’t watch any news at all.”
This isn't the first study that has found that Fox News viewers more misinformed in comparison to others. Last year, a study from the University of Maryland found that Fox News viewers were more likely to believe lies and false information about politics and world events.
OBEY - do not think .............. BELIEVE - do not reason
Left and Right is a puppet show.
FOX NEWS is nothing more than the voice of the 1% filtered through Rupert! It amazes how many middle income citizens actually religiously hang on every word that is broadcast on FOX or Limbaugh and accept it as gospel. All in the name of Party Loyalty!
We are divided in this country, and that is exactly what the 1% want... dividing us and continuing to conquer us through party affiliation.
Democracy now is also beholden to big money. Fox has from time to time done good reporting. Google for Israeli art students spy ring and amdocs.
I despise the plotting of political views on a line. Could it be dumbed down any further? Political views of thinking folks are much too nuanced and multi-dimensional than a line can express.
Left-Right is a mind virus; a deliberate dumbing down of every view and the worst enemy of productive dialogue on any issue.
I agree that it is too simplistic. It is, as you suggest, multidimensional.
Media bias in general, Fox being the exception, is very subtle and is more detectable in what they choose to present and what they present as the other side. Since there are always more that two sides, that reduction is the most obvious bias.
What they choose to not to present and their refusal to identify lies, distortions, cherry picked evidence and their claims of accurately reporting of fallacious positions as EQUALLY plausible is the most insidious.
Read George Washington's Farewell Address. Especially what he said about party.
Exactly.
The related parts about foreign influence are similarly essential reading.
Some excerpts, quoted from http://www.bartleby.com/43/24.html
"One of the expedients of Party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts.—You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heart burnings, which spring from these misrepresentations;—they tend to render alien to each other those, who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection."
". . .all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency.—They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force—to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party;—often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community;—and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils, and modified by mutual interests.—However combinations or associations of the above descriptions may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, and to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
" I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical discriminations.—Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally. 19 This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.—It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.— 20 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.—But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.—The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an Individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty. 21 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.— 22 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.—It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the Government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another. 23 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty.—This within certain limits is probably true—and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party.—But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged.—From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose,—and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it.—A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
I can't copy and paste easily with my Droid so I'll just call your attention to paragraphs 30 through 35.
per request:
Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.—Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it?—It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example, of a People always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.—Who can doubt that in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature.—Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices? 30 In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated.—The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.—Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.—Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed and bloody contests.—The Nation prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to War the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy.—The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject;—at other times, it makes the animosity of the Nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives.—The peace often, sometimes perhaps the Liberty, Nations has been the victim.— 31 So likewise a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils.—Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite Nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity:—gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, and the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.— 32 As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot.—How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practise the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. 33 Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens, the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican Government.—But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it.—Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favourite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. 34 The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little Political connection as possible.—So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith.—Here let us stop.—
This should be read aloud in both the House and Senate.
There is a verse from a Leon Russell song, Magic Mirror, that goes like this - "The left ones think I'm right, the right ones think I'm wrong."
Says so much in so few words.
"Our two party system is a bowl of shit looking in the mirror at itself."
Ah yes, one guy leans left, so the entire media must lean left. I know your absolutely right, because you say so.
whispering, "do you think FOX News leans far right enough to compensate for all the rest of the media?" "hummmm"
[Removed]
I didn't say the entire media leans left you liberal...your hero Chris "Tingling Legs" Matthews said it.
There are 6 major American broadcast news organizations of which Fox News is one. Who else reports like Fox News?
Everything exists on a spectrum. If you think Fox News is on one end then who is on the other?
And no I don't think Fox News can compensate for the liberal media that this country has to endure.
liberals have allowed Socialism to take root. I'd rather be American than liberal.
Chris Matthews a "liberal"? CHRIS MATTHEWS?!?! This is the guy who's pals with the Reagans & Michael Smerconish.
Yeah, Chris Matthews is real left leaning. Right! Gotcha
The thing with media is that it is not being policed by the FCC the same as the FDA is not policing the food industry to keep out harmful steroids and hormones from our food supply as well as harmful additives known to cause cancer and like the environmental agency does nothing to promote the implementation of green energy or enforce anti-pollution regulations. Mainstream media is the same as yellow journalism, they present the views and ideals of the 1% owners. What else do you call it but yellow journalism when statements are taken totally out of context to throw dirt at someone. Not to mention the adds placed by entities such as Chevron that are totally biased against clean green energy development and implementation. If they're advertising were truthful they would be telling us that they're efforts are towards sitting on green technology until they have no choice but to use it.
You're right about the FCC. But the FCC needs to be non-partisan...if that's possible.
I think Chris Matthews is an extreme reactionary .
Yeah the media is really liberal! That's why they don't accept money from corporations - oh that's what commercials are - maybe I forgot the media are just trying to find the truth! Please
I suppose compared to FOX... the Gestapo would have appeared to lean left!
It's not about left or right... it's about a group of citizens that blindly accept information from one source alone. Fortunately, the OWS citizens see through this charade and are objective, and intelligent enough to see the truth.
It's amazing how many middle income citizens actually religiously hang on every word that is broadcast on FOX or Limbaugh and accept it as gospel... all in the name of Party Loyalty!
We are divided in this country, and that is exactly what the 1% want... dividing us and continuing to conquer us through party affiliation.
Same thing for the left, sorry... Otherwise, there would zero chance that Obama would be allowed to ocuupy the whitehouse one more day.
matthews told charlie rose "i believe in american exceptionalism" - not much of a lefty if he says that
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/who-owns-the-media-the-6-monolithic-corporations-that-control-almost-everything-we-watch-hear-and-read
http://www.freepress.net/resources/ownership
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/owners.html
http://www.corporations.org/media/
http://mediaowners.com/
http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main
I watch Chris a lot. Yes he has some liberal tendencies, but don't confuse Chris with Keith Olbermann. It's not even close.
Wow! Someone who can admit that Matthews is a liberal. Does it disturb you that so many who have commented on this post can't even admit that Matthews is a liberal?
Matthews isn't Olbermann? Uhhh....I guess that's an argument for another day.
what a joke He isn't anywhere close to being left leaning
he is not quite joe scarborough who is an absolute shill for the repugs by the way his show "morning joe' is the worst of msnbc lineup matthew is pretty conservative
He isn't close? Then what is he? What is a grown man who says something like, "Watching Obama tonight gave me a thrill up my leg!"
From Wiki:
When liberal Matthews first arrived in D.C., he worked as a police officer with the United States Capitol Police. Subsequently, he served on the staffs of 4 Democratic members of Congress, including Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie.
In 1974, he mounted an unsuccessful campaign for Pennsylvania's 4th congressional district seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, in which he received about 24% of the vote in the primary.
liberal Matthews was a presidential speechwriter during the Carter administration, and later worked for six years as a top aide to long-time Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O'Neill (liberal), playing a direct role in many key political battles WITH the Reagan administration.
for petes sake obama isn't a lefty either he is so in the pockets of corporations
Reich-wingers like bumpy are incessantly shoving the media to the right by demonizing the media as left or liberal leaning.
This scum is just another fascist thug and forum troll without any moral base at all.
Do I need a moral base to post a link to a video clip you stupid liberal asshole?
Question for you you stupid liberal asshole...how do I shove the media to the right?
How come 2 years ago we never heard about Socialism or Socialists in America you stupid liberal asshole?
Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann (whom I used to like a lot), helped put this country into the economic spin it is in by forcefully pulling for Barack Obama well before many democrats had voted in the democratic primaries.
Now these two guys are apparently unhappy with Obama. Democratic moderate liberalism has been pushed aside by democratic progressives.
Unfortunately, progressives and neo-con republicans can't work together, as we continue to see evidence of.
Moderate Liberals and non-evangelical non neo-con republicans work best together.
my take on mathews "hurry up, faster, you're stupid, moving on".
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Measurable-Science/216084688411620?sk=wall
Announced to the whole world, this document is 2012 after the closing date for the start who want to start your paper, whatever your intentions here. Can not use for those who want to start your response. Seek justice in case of units in the world, an official request in this regard would be more accurate to consider this statement. On the other hand will receive the same notice as a formal application. Please do not move with the political path, or method, this is not strictly a political federation, not an an army federation, not a stratejical tactic play federation, not a play the time game federation, not a secret listening play deferation, not a secret service create and intelligence-gathering play federation, not a religious play federation. Decision-makers in this country which must be approved by the approval of the protocol is started only once and then only temporarily hold the can. Federation members and employees who intentionally blocking, as the lead in the family until the charge penalty imposition fusillade (first Turkish Republic members (TBMM), all worker, all family, European Human Rights of all members of all family, because you are not a human rights, possible also the only animal right, if you not apply this your nations not come please). In addition to the preparation or response, please do not want to start thinking like a human being here, or if you have reasons to begin the write here. Some are political, waiting for the federation not wants to implement, but federation does not choise your nation. Federation not play games play center. Want to play games go to beach, or go play center. Write your decision here if I said my nation play the game. This protocol is not prepared according to the demands of human intelligence for special behaviour, İf you apply this method all of which disappear in space. This protocol is prepared according to the structure of space, but is organized according to levels of human intelligence. This is not transmitting any announcement until the day the press about the protocol, even though his dog in their own countries. Protocol not wait country dog. Make sure that those who work for the construction of this protocol is the future of the human race than all the people who think. If you have a faulty part of the protocol, not as a reaction to it, as a report of research results reported clearly for appropriate. All the studies prepared for the protocol that has very high economic value for the person/groups who prepared. Every good thing as a good value economics or alike. Something of not value for the welcome everyone who wants to be, does not understand the value of something they wish to not have. No good things who will think destroy some goods, for good eating is not prepared the bad stew. In the federation does not except that; mass movements of people around the world against the something out of a motivation strategy that implements the views of the unknown next event. Human are not motivated like animal, such as it is called provocative human being. I hope to review the protocol is the most important things human existence, but it really is very difficult to educate people. Moves up in the federation of mass self-communication tools and technology used to carry out without harming the other party. Please, do not hurt yourself mass actions.
He is a Neo-Liberal as is Obama and most of his followers.
when it comes to whether the media is right or left, I believe that the comparison is too simple for my taste. if you have a affluent, medium, and working class breakdown in society, and the affluent class is separated into Liberal and Conservative factions, well that don't mean either side speaks for the other classes. and i'm not hating on the upper classes; I'm just saying their views may not have my best interests at heart, whether they are left, right or wrong.
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.
Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Hence they can lead to poor decisions, especially in organizational, scientific, military, political and social contexts.
"Fortunately for serious minds, a bias recognized is a bias sterilized." Benjamin Haydon
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Republicans_Detached_From_Reality
“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan "press on" has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race”
Once you begin to think for yourself then you will see a new reality.
If we see Betelgeuse explode in 2012 then it has already exploded.
Thank God the national media leans a little to the left...we need sanity.
I thought liberals didn't believe in God.
There's a whole bunch of conservatives or right-libertarians on this very forum who have said they are atheists. It would be interesting to do an unofficial poll right here.
I don't think conservatives have a lock on believing in God.
Maybe it was once true that more conservatives belonged to a church, not sure that's true any longer.
The "free market" seems to be a lot of people's god these days.
I don't know. Obamas administration is totally corrupt and yet the media reports very little on it. The whole Fast and Furious thing is an absolute outrage and the media treatsvit like nothing.
why would the corrupt media negatively report on one of their own