The idea of a liberal media is false, eh?

redrumloa

redrumloa

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
14,970
Reaction score
2,154
[youtube:3qg1l5ml]xd9OYJMX9t4[/youtube:3qg1l5ml]
 
The idea of a liberal media is not false. The fact that the media is liberal is false. If you mean that because there are some liberal media outlets then that proves the media is liberal then you are simply not thinking very clearly. There are liberal outlets. NPR is a bit more liberal than the norm for the US. Other liberal outlets are the Guardian and the Independent (bet a lot of Americans haven't heard of them, but then again, they aren't American publications), and that's pretty much the list. CBC, BBC maybe more liberal than US outlets but once again, foreign.

So I see that James O'Keefe has resurfaced. He seems to be bouncing back after his arrest for attempting to bug government phones. He didn't have to spend 10 years in jail for that - lucky he has the right kind of friends. Then there was the kerfuffle about his plan to set up a "liberal" reporter for some dildo related humiliation.
 
Well, OK, maybe RT is liberal too. :)
[youtube:2kvwo80c]ejzxs30Q2HI[/youtube:2kvwo80c]
 
not sure what the big deal is.

if the god hates fags family get to spout their bullshit and limpaw gets to be a public hypocrite and that nazi lover beck get to spew his lies (and so on) why can't others have their opinion?
 
cecilia said:
not sure what the big deal is.

if the god hates fags family get to spout their bullshit and limpaw gets to be a public hypocrite and that nazi lover beck get to spew his lies (and so on) why can't others have their opinion?
Click to expand...

Public funding and lack of transparency. If you listen to Glenn Beck, you know what you are getting and Glenn Beck does not receive federal money. NPR pretends to be unbiased, but as this video shows they are anything but unbiased. What our tax dollars are funding is a dirty propaganda machine.
 
The idea that the BBC is still considered liberal is depressing.

Perhaps years ago but not for a long time.
 
NPR gets a tiny percentage of it's money from the gov.

hardly anything to get excited about

in any case it's all a distraction from what really matters - that the middle class is being destroyed by greedy rich bastards
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Well, OK, maybe RT is liberal too. :)
Click to expand...

this is the Wisconsin mob
[youtube:1cfbiir5]iGdwsvj5k8Y[/youtube:1cfbiir5]
 
Tune into Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow and actually learn a bit about liberal thought in the USA. The mainstream media isn't liberal. (For example does your newspaper have a Labor section or a Business section) Mainstream media tends to be for whomever pays them the most. It's no longer news it's entertainment. Reagan started the death of media and Clinton put the nail in it.
 
faethor said:
Tune into Ed Schultz and Rachel Maddow and actually learn a bit about liberal thought in the USA.
Click to expand...

Schultz: Autobahn Set Example For Today's Spending

SCHULTZ: He's (Gov Scott Walker) turned back federal money, this one underpinning story of this whole thing, is the rail system between Madison-Milwaukee, that's got people furious! That's economic development! And then if you take it down to Chicago. You want Wisconsin to grow, you gotta tap into one of the biggest cities in the world and that's Chicago!

HOLM: Yeah. That line would go right from Minneapolis, Minn., right to Chicago, right through Madison and Milwaukee.

SCHULTZ: Boom!

HOLM: It's the greatest economic driver that state could ever have.

SCHULTZ: There you go! There you go. You would see smaller towns pop up because transportation's easy. You'd see a lot of people out of the big cities that would move to a lower area, to smaller areas because their tax base would be probably a little bit different. You know, the communities would be possibly safer. Can we say that? 'Cause not as many people, correct?

HOLM: Yeah.

SCHULTZ: And a lot of people take to small-town living. How do you get in? Well, you jump on the train, you're in Chicago in an hour. What the hell beats that?

HOLM: Exactly.

SCHULTZ: You know, people in, I was telling this story on this program last week, I mean, we got some people in this building at 30 Rock, they commute for two hours one way and two hours the other way. I think they're nuts!

HOLM: But I do it every day. An hour a day on the train is nothing!

SCHULTZ: Well, you still have two hours to go. I meant, two hours in, two hours back. Four hours. You're not in the nuts division yet.

HOLM: But I'm saying that if you live ...

SCHULTZ: I won't let you get that far.

HOLM: ... If you live in Madison and you want to work in Milwaukee and you can hop on a train and be there in an hour, it's awesome!

SCHULTZ: So, he's turned that down. That's infuriated a lot of people and it would have created jobs.

HOLM: Without a doubt, about 5,500, at least.

SCHULTZ: OK. And, but the other thing is, how many sustained jobs would it have done? It would have been a foundation of a job creator because of the transportation and the movement of the people.

HOLM: That's right.

SCHULTZ: That's what they did back in the 1930s to move people and get the economy going. They made the (pause) Autobahn system.

HOLM: Yes they did.

SCHULTZ: 'Member?

HOLM: Yes they did.

SCHULTZ: OK. Just, so it's been done before! That's all I was trying to point out. It's just been done before! You know, so ...
Click to expand...

The Autobahn was constructed by the National Socialists to support the blitzkreig of Europe, to move Panzers quickly, built largely with prison labor in the 1930s.

If you have lots of stops on a high speed train, it is not a high speed train anymore.
 
From: XXXX
Sent: Wed 3/9/2011 9:18 PM
To: Sen.Kapanke; Sen.Darling; Sen.Cowles; Sen.Ellis; Sen.Fitzgerald; Sen.Galloway; Sen.Grothman; Sen.Harsdorf; Sen.Hopper; Sen.Kedzie; Sen.Lasee; Sen.Lazich; Sen.Leibham; Sen.Moulton; Sen.Olsen
Subject: Atten: Death threat!!!! Bomb!!!!

Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes[sic] will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit
that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for
more information on possible scenarios in which you will die.

WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in
the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me have decided that we've had enough. We feel that you and the people that
support the dictator have to die. We have tried many other ways of dealing with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand for it any longer. So, this is how it's going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records. We have all planned to assault you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, we decided that we wouldn't leave it there. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the message to you since you are so "high" on Koch and have decided that you are now going to single handedly[sic] make this a dictatorship instead of a demorcratic[sic] process. So we have also built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent. This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won't
tell you all of them because that's just no fun. Since we know that you are
not smart enough to figure out why this is happening to you we have decided
to make it perfectly clear to you. If you and your goonies feel that it's
necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making
them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families
and themselves then We Will "get rid of" (in which I mean kill) you. Please understand that this does not include the heroic Rep. Senator that risked
everything to go aganist what you and your goonies wanted him to do. We feel that it's worth our lives to do this, because we would be saving the lives
of 300,000 people. Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and
say goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. YOU WILL DIE!!!!
Click to expand...
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
commentary on the NPR thing
Click to expand...

Wow! The spin is very strong in that article! He is arguing that everyone in the world knows NPR is liberal biased so NPR should embrace it and tell republicans to go F themselves. That's all fine and dandy as long as you cut all federal funding and rename yourself NLPR.
 
redrumloa said:
FluffyMcDeath said:
commentary on the NPR thing
Click to expand...

Wow! The spin is very strong in that article!
Click to expand...

The bit that I found interesting was that the NPR had an excuse to ditch a guy who was speaking on Fox against government funding of the NPR so it looks as though the right has just handed the left the excuse to dump a right wing mole.
 
redrumloa said:
faethor said:
NPR uncovers how corporatations avoid taxes GOP defunding NPR is simply self preservation.
Click to expand...
How do you figure?
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/03 ... entry-2114
Click to expand...
The page you linked to indicates corporations support Republicans. Unions not so much. Also, that corporations make up the majority of Democratic support, unions a significant minority. It makes sense to me that the GOP wants to protect their funding base, corporations, and by cutting a news outlet that report on less then desireable actions of their funding base is one way to do this.

Also, I found this article interesting to see the Union backing of the 2010 election. I hear right-wingers cry about the unfair Union funding of elections and how that should be cut. By this article it's the Unions that fund 16% of election with Corporations funding the other 83%.
 
faethor said:
How do you figure?
The page you linked to indicates corporations support Republicans. Unions not so much. Also, that corporations make up the majority of Democratic support, unions a significant minority. It makes sense to me that the GOP wants to protect their funding base, corporations, and by cutting a news outlet that report on less then desireable actions of their funding base is one way to do this.

Also, I found this article interesting to see the Union backing of the 2010 election. I hear right-wingers cry about the unfair Union funding of elections and how that should be cut. By this article it's the Unions that fund 16% of election with Corporations funding the other 83%.
Click to expand...

By the 2008 election cycle, however, when Democrats were poised to control both chambers of Congress and the White House, contributions from business PACs were split about evenly between Republican and Democratic candidates and groups. During the 2010 election cycle, that parity continued -- almost down to the last dollar.
 
redrumloa said:
By the 2008 election cycle, however, when Democrats were poised to control both chambers of Congress and the White House, contributions from business PACs were split about evenly between Republican and Democratic candidates and groups. During the 2010 election cycle, that parity continued -- almost down to the last dollar.
Click to expand...
In 2010 business contribution to Republicans was about equal to that of Democrats. Also in 2010 political PAC money was about equal between the two parties. So financially these are a level playing field. The differnce is Union spending. 90% of Union funding went to Dems the other 10% to Republicans. This amount made up 24% of Democratic monies. What we have is a larger majority of the monies in Republican coffiers is business related. NPR is a good cut politically appeasing the Republican base while protecting business contributions. It does jack shit for the economy as it makes up about 1/10th of 1% of spending.

Also, we see why Republicans like to attack labor. They aren't in the favor of Republicans. It's an attempt, again, to remove power from the middle-class and remove a significant portion, about 25%, of the Democratic funding.

As for the people here that were so concerned about labor funding through unions we can see the workers funded the elections at about 1/10th of the rate of their bosses. When you look to funding problems the majority of the problem clearly lies with exorbinate business spending. A representative can't do 'the will of the people' when they are getting their will through funding of a few elites.

In 2011 we have clearly seen problems from abundant welath in the hands of a few. The shining example of this is the Koch Bros. They may have been able to acquire some of the weath. Being born with a silver spoon in their mouths as multi-millionaires was an advantage. The 'old money' from their father is influencing the political system. Clearly it's a problem for a nation that is of, by, and for the people. Our Founding Fathers knew that inherited wealth could in turn create an aristocracy within our nation. It's something they wanted to avoid. Jefferson was clearly worried a permanent elite class might be created and in turn would be likely not to consider the needs and desires of the majority. IMO, ole Tommy is spinning in his grave @ Wisconsin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top