>>>On most topics, FOX and MSNBC are on the same side of the argument
Not really. President's Obama administration has called FOX the "media arm of the Republican party" and I would argue that MSNBC is the media arm for the Democrats. That's two diametrically opposed viewpoints.
As for other viewpoints, like Libertarianism (small government) or Progressivism (massive government) you won't find them on the TV. Or even the radio. You have to turn to the internet.
That's just how American politics work.
>>>MSNBC and FOX are equally far out in right field, both bordering on unabashed extremism. As is most of America, for that matter. The fact that America is still struggling to sort out its medical system, 60-90 years after everyone else did, is telling in and of itself. >>>
We believe in the right to get health or sickcare. We also believe in the right to choose smoking, drinking, or overeating. We even believe you have the right to replace your damaged lung, liver, or fatty heart. What we do NOT believe is that you can force your neighbors to pay the bill. Most Americans consider that theft. We are amazed that Europeans do not.
>>>To the extent that the government responds to the will of the people, it is not the nobility.
An elected nobility is still a class-based society (they control us - the commoners), and antithetical to the foundational goals of the U.S. where all would be equal, and none above the Supreme Law of the land (people's constitution).
>>>Fine. Then might I ask why George Bush doesn't show up on your list of world leaders trying to restore the monarchies/oligarchies?
I often do list Bush. In fact I just called him a tyrant ~15 minutes ago in a different article. Jeez. Stop being such a black/white minded person. The world is shades of gray and my particular shade runs toward Jefferson-Libertarianism. . I haven't liked any of our presidents since 1992, although I will say this about Obama. He's five times worse than Bush (that's about how much faster our national debt is growing - five times faster).
Yeah I watch Rachel Maddow at least once a week, and a lot of the things she accuses FOX of distorting, are not distortions. SHE'S the one who is deliberately not telling the truth.
Final thought - People were carrying guns at Bush protests as well. It's not a black/white thing. It's an anti-big government thing. Anyway we need at least ONE organization that is pushing for Constitutional limitations and small government. ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN sure as hell ain't doing it. All they talk about is expansion of government and how that's a "good thing"
>>>MSNBC showed footage of a man carrying an assault rifle and a pistol in a presidential event in Arizona
No let's be more specific. They showed a *repeating loop* of the man's waist. The entire footage, which was shown on CNN and FOX, shows the cameraman pan up and reveal the identity of the man as black. They even interviewed him and asked him why a black man is protesting a black president (because he believes in small government).
So the question becomes: Why did MSNBC's editing room CUT the pan, and instead put the video on a loop, thus concealing the man's skin color? The answer becomes obvious when you listen to the overvoicing from the reporters - to hide the color of the man's skin, and mislead people to think he was a white man, and a racist besides.
That's reminiscent of what propagandists did in former Eastern Europe. - They didn't blatantly lie. Instead they distorted the truth, with creative video edits and voiceovers.
>>>Typically I've found that people that love Fox News, O'Reilly, Hannity or Glenn Beck are big fans but only after the 2008 election campaigns started >>>
Typically I've found that people pull random "factoids" out of their ass, without any kind of proof other than they BELIEVE something to be true. FOX News has been the #1 cable news channels for over five years now (going back to 2004) according to Nielsen Ratings.
>>>There is plenty of blame to go around but this idea that some how the Democrats in concert with lower income earning U.S. citizens caused the current economic crisis is dumb founding idiocy. >>>
And yet I hear on the television almost hourly, "The Republicans ruined the economy." Funny how everyone thinks that's a-okay. Double standard.
As long as the Dems insist upon attacking me, just because I'm registered (r), then I'm going to strike back. Those videos the Grandparent Poster linked clearly show that the Dems encouraged high-risk loans ("yes som will lead to bankruptcy") and refused to regulate Fannie or Freddie Mac in 2004 when they had the chance. Then they somehow spin that around and say, "Not our fault." Bullshit.
>>>Those companies are butchering someone else's work
Ahh. Did we hurt wittle directors' feelings, because we don't want our 5-year-olds hearing "fuck you" in the middle of a Transformers movie? Well that's just too bad.
>>>for profit
I'm aware of this "company". It was a sole guy who was working out of his basement. He wasn't getting rich. He was providing a service which I and many other families found useful. Now I can't show Transformers or many other films to my kids. And it's not as if the creators were losing money. The original DVD was purchased legally, edited to remove sex/lanaguage/violence, and then sold. The creator got his residual.
>>>the creators wanted to maintain artistic integrity.
You mean they want to ruin family-friendly shows with un-necessary sex/violence/language. They have TV-friendly versions. They said they would release those on DVD, but never did.
First there were the Celtic-Britons. Thn came an infusion of Romans and Gauls (100-300s). Then another infusion of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (500s). A steady invasion of Vikings (Danelaw-800-1000). And finally Norman-French (1100-1200s). You'd think the modern day Celtic-Roman-Anglo-Danish-Norman people living in the UK would be some of the best-looking humans.
I think it's funny how people have forgotten the events of history.
Oh sure you'll probably say, but that was the Cold War, many years ago and 10,000 miles away. No actually it was right here just a few months ago. "Bush is a lousy president, and this war is a war against my people - Muslims." (knock knock knock). "Open up! You're going to Gitmo where you will be held without trial for many years."
Anonymity is the last resort to protect you when presidents/leaders are acting like tyrants.
This is not just a good idea. It's the Supreme Law of the land - even higher than the U.S. Supreme Court. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."
Posting with your real name is not the problems. Idiots like French and former-EU President Sarkozy, or former President Bush, who will use your speech to throw you in jail - they are the problem.
Anonymity is the last resort when they take-away your right to speak freely. Anonymity allows you to exercise your inalienable right without fear of the men in black dragging you off to jail.
Freezer burn ist easily fixed by heating dor product in de microwave at power level tree or lower. (Make sure container ist wrap-ped in celophane so moischure can note esscape.)
Even if the SCOTUS had decided "the press" is only those with credentials, it would not revoke my right of free speech (amendment 1) nor my right of freedom to write-down my thoughts (amendment 9). The latter is protected by article 40 of the Maryland Constitution - "that every citizen of the State ought to be allowed to speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects".
Aside -
I also like this particular right: "That monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered."
I would have handed them my RAM stick from my PC and said, "Here you go. Recover it," and watch the fucking fool judge waste thousands of dollars trying to get it,
Yes but the date of the subpoena's issuance was *under Obama's watch*
"On February 1st, 2009, Kristina Clair of Philadelphia, PA -- one of the system administrators of the server that hosts the indymedia.us site -- received in the mail a grand jury subpoena from the Southern District of Indiana federal court."
I wish y'all would stop bashing Obama's Justice Department.
Yes there are problems, but he's aware of them, and he's doing his best to solve these problems in his own way. He doesn't need us criticizing him, so just cooperate with the subpoena instead of making a fuss about it.
Since Democrats are generally more intelligent than Republicans (in terms of IQ), I'm surprised you couldn't figure it out yourself. Maybe you did figure it out, nd even heard Beck say he's just playing devil's advocate, but would rather bash him than listen.
i.e You are doing the typical unfair behavior the communists did in 1945-89.
Okay. Glenn says, "May I have 5 minutes where I am politcally incorrect [i.e. playing devils advocate] and ask some unfair questions." Congressman: "Sure go ahead."
I see nothing wrong with it. He was *playing a role* and the Congressman gave permission to participate in the game. I do that myself sometimes where I'll say something ridiculous like "Women shouldn't be allowed to drive," just for fun and to see how people react. I don't believe what I'm saying, and neither did Beck. He even *asked permission* prior to doing it.
>>>>>I come from the point of view that I think our founding fathers came from, in that it is wise thing for an American to have a healthy distrust in his government at all times >> >>I think you might need to step back and seriously consider your perceptions. If you believe that he is honestly trying... GO look again..
I find it strange you object to the notion of distrusting government, especially after recent history (World War 2, Cold War) and almost-daily reports about governments wanting to spy on internet usage. As for sticking my head elsewhere, I do watch Rachel Maddow at least once a week va msnbc.com's archives. I find her even more annoying then Glenn Beck. She seems willing to believe anything Obama or his Democrats tell her to believe, and I don't understand such blind obedience.
>>>See Jefferson believed, first and foremost in a united nation.
Really? He worked for President Washington, but wrote letters back home to Virginia about how Washington was being poorly advised by Alexander Hamilton, whom he considered an enemy of liberty. Next he went-off and created the Democratic-republican Party, with the sole intent of unseating President Adams. And when he succeeded in that goal, he spoke of the "Revolution of 1800", and also said that from time to time the Tree of Liberty must be watered with blood.
Jefferson was a divider not a uniter. Yes he compromised where necessary, but was more often inclined to stand firm. So much so that he and Adams became bitter enemies for almost thirty years.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>On most topics, FOX and MSNBC are on the same side of the argument
Not really. President's Obama administration has called FOX the "media arm of the Republican party" and I would argue that MSNBC is the media arm for the Democrats. That's two diametrically opposed viewpoints.
As for other viewpoints, like Libertarianism (small government) or Progressivism (massive government) you won't find them on the TV. Or even the radio. You have to turn to the internet.
That's just how American politics work.
>>>MSNBC and FOX are equally far out in right field, both bordering on unabashed extremism. As is most of America, for that matter. The fact that America is still struggling to sort out its medical system, 60-90 years after everyone else did, is telling in and of itself.
>>>
We believe in the right to get health or sickcare.
We also believe in the right to choose smoking, drinking, or overeating.
We even believe you have the right to replace your damaged lung, liver, or fatty heart.
What we do NOT believe is that you can force your neighbors to pay the bill. Most Americans consider that theft. We are amazed that Europeans do not.
>>>To the extent that the government responds to the will of the people, it is not the nobility.
An elected nobility is still a class-based society (they control us - the commoners), and antithetical to the foundational goals of the U.S. where all would be equal, and none above the Supreme Law of the land (people's constitution).
Ever heard of "positive liberty"? It's the idea of using force to make you free. The two-word phrase can be shorted to a single word called "tyranny". See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV_LmK7_kxo&feature=related
>>>Fine. Then might I ask why George Bush doesn't show up on your list of world leaders trying to restore the monarchies/oligarchies?
I often do list Bush. In fact I just called him a tyrant ~15 minutes ago in a different article. Jeez. Stop being such a black/white minded person. The world is shades of gray and my particular shade runs toward Jefferson-Libertarianism. . I haven't liked any of our presidents since 1992, although I will say this about Obama. He's five times worse than Bush (that's about how much faster our national debt is growing - five times faster).
Yeah I watch Rachel Maddow at least once a week, and a lot of the things she accuses FOX of distorting, are not distortions. SHE'S the one who is deliberately not telling the truth.
Final thought - People were carrying guns at Bush protests as well. It's not a black/white thing. It's an anti-big government thing. Anyway we need at least ONE organization that is pushing for Constitutional limitations and small government. ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN sure as hell ain't doing it. All they talk about is expansion of government and how that's a "good thing"
>>>MSNBC showed footage of a man carrying an assault rifle and a pistol in a presidential event in Arizona
No let's be more specific. They showed a *repeating loop* of the man's waist. The entire footage, which was shown on CNN and FOX, shows the cameraman pan up and reveal the identity of the man as black. They even interviewed him and asked him why a black man is protesting a black president (because he believes in small government).
So the question becomes: Why did MSNBC's editing room CUT the pan, and instead put the video on a loop, thus concealing the man's skin color? The answer becomes obvious when you listen to the overvoicing from the reporters - to hide the color of the man's skin, and mislead people to think he was a white man, and a racist besides.
That's reminiscent of what propagandists did in former Eastern Europe.
- They didn't blatantly lie.
Instead they distorted the truth, with creative video edits and voiceovers.
>>>Typically I've found that people that love Fox News, O'Reilly, Hannity or Glenn Beck are big fans but only after the 2008 election campaigns started
>>>
Typically I've found that people pull random "factoids" out of their ass, without any kind of proof other than they BELIEVE something to be true. FOX News has been the #1 cable news channels for over five years now (going back to 2004) according to Nielsen Ratings.
The sad part is I'm quoting a Babylon 5 episode from 1995 (a Nightwatch guy defending EA President Clarke). Nothing really changes
>>>There is plenty of blame to go around but this idea that some how the Democrats in concert with lower income earning U.S. citizens caused the current economic crisis is dumb founding idiocy.
>>>
And yet I hear on the television almost hourly, "The Republicans ruined the economy."
Funny how everyone thinks that's a-okay.
Double standard.
As long as the Dems insist upon attacking me, just because I'm registered (r), then I'm going to strike back. Those videos the Grandparent Poster linked clearly show that the Dems encouraged high-risk loans ("yes som will lead to bankruptcy") and refused to regulate Fannie or Freddie Mac in 2004 when they had the chance. Then they somehow spin that around and say, "Not our fault." Bullshit.
If Russia joined, it would be subservient to the central EU government
>>>Those companies are butchering someone else's work
Ahh. Did we hurt wittle directors' feelings, because we don't want our 5-year-olds hearing "fuck you" in the middle of a Transformers movie? Well that's just too bad.
>>>for profit
I'm aware of this "company". It was a sole guy who was working out of his basement. He wasn't getting rich. He was providing a service which I and many other families found useful. Now I can't show Transformers or many other films to my kids. And it's not as if the creators were losing money. The original DVD was purchased legally, edited to remove sex/lanaguage/violence, and then sold. The creator got his residual.
>>>the creators wanted to maintain artistic integrity.
You mean they want to ruin family-friendly shows with un-necessary sex/violence/language. They have TV-friendly versions. They said they would release those on DVD, but never did.
I'm surprised.
First there were the Celtic-Britons. Thn came an infusion of Romans and Gauls (100-300s). Then another infusion of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (500s). A steady invasion of Vikings (Danelaw-800-1000). And finally Norman-French (1100-1200s). You'd think the modern day Celtic-Roman-Anglo-Danish-Norman people living in the UK would be some of the best-looking humans.
I think it's funny how people have forgotten the events of history.
Oh sure you'll probably say, but that was the Cold War, many years ago and 10,000 miles away. No actually it was right here just a few months ago. "Bush is a lousy president, and this war is a war against my people - Muslims." (knock knock knock). "Open up! You're going to Gitmo where you will be held without trial for many years."
Anonymity is the last resort to protect you when presidents/leaders are acting like tyrants.
This is not just a good idea. It's the Supreme Law of the land - even higher than the U.S. Supreme Court. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."
Posting with your real name is not the problems. Idiots like French and former-EU President Sarkozy, or former President Bush, who will use your speech to throw you in jail - they are the problem.
Anonymity is the last resort when they take-away your right to speak freely. Anonymity allows you to exercise your inalienable right without fear of the men in black dragging you off to jail.
Freezer burn ist easily fixed by heating dor product in de microwave at power level tree or lower.
(Make sure container ist wrap-ped in celophane so moischure can note esscape.)
...they laugh at the USA becoming the United Soviets of America. (Don't believe? Just read Pravda)
Even if the SCOTUS had decided "the press" is only those with credentials, it would not revoke my right of free speech (amendment 1) nor my right of freedom to write-down my thoughts (amendment 9). The latter is protected by article 40 of the Maryland Constitution - "that every citizen of the State ought to be allowed to speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects".
Aside -
I also like this particular right: "That monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered."
Judge Napolitano frequently says
"We have a ONE party system - the Big Government Party - and it has two branches: the republican branch and the democratic branch."
That guy's brilliant.
>>>In my company, I'm watching them implement 15 petabyte storage solutions just to keep track of 12 months of http hits
Why doesn't your company just declare "unfunded mandate" and refuse to comply until (or if) a law is passed?
I would have handed them my RAM stick from my PC and said, "Here you go. Recover it," and watch the fucking fool judge waste thousands of dollars trying to get it,
Yes but the date of the subpoena's issuance was *under Obama's watch*
"On February 1st, 2009, Kristina Clair of Philadelphia, PA -- one of the system administrators of the server that hosts the indymedia.us site -- received in the mail a grand jury subpoena from the Southern District of Indiana federal court."
I wish y'all would stop bashing Obama's Justice Department.
Yes there are problems, but he's aware of them, and he's doing his best to solve these problems in his own way. He doesn't need us criticizing him, so just cooperate with the subpoena instead of making a fuss about it.
P.S.
Since Democrats are generally more intelligent than Republicans (in terms of IQ), I'm surprised you couldn't figure it out yourself. Maybe you did figure it out, nd even heard Beck say he's just playing devil's advocate, but would rather bash him than listen.
i.e You are doing the typical unfair behavior the communists did in 1945-89.
Okay. Glenn says, "May I have 5 minutes where I am politcally incorrect [i.e. playing devils advocate] and ask some unfair questions." Congressman: "Sure go ahead."
I see nothing wrong with it. He was *playing a role* and the Congressman gave permission to participate in the game. I do that myself sometimes where I'll say something ridiculous like "Women shouldn't be allowed to drive," just for fun and to see how people react. I don't believe what I'm saying, and neither did Beck. He even *asked permission* prior to doing it.
>>>>>I come from the point of view that I think our founding fathers came from, in that it is wise thing for an American to have a healthy distrust in his government at all times
>>
>>I think you might need to step back and seriously consider your perceptions. If you believe that he is honestly trying... GO look again..
I find it strange you object to the notion of distrusting government, especially after recent history (World War 2, Cold War) and almost-daily reports about governments wanting to spy on internet usage. As for sticking my head elsewhere, I do watch Rachel Maddow at least once a week va msnbc.com's archives. I find her even more annoying then Glenn Beck. She seems willing to believe anything Obama or his Democrats tell her to believe, and I don't understand such blind obedience.
>>>See Jefferson believed, first and foremost in a united nation.
Really? He worked for President Washington, but wrote letters back home to Virginia about how Washington was being poorly advised by Alexander Hamilton, whom he considered an enemy of liberty. Next he went-off and created the Democratic-republican Party, with the sole intent of unseating President Adams. And when he succeeded in that goal, he spoke of the "Revolution of 1800", and also said that from time to time the Tree of Liberty must be watered with blood.
Jefferson was a divider not a uniter. Yes he compromised where necessary, but was more often inclined to stand firm. So much so that he and Adams became bitter enemies for almost thirty years.