America in 1928

[Rick]

Rick:
Sorry my comment may strike you as left wing but it's not. I mentioned Olbermann along with the rest of these charlatans who are a detriment to the USA. You'll find later that I am not concerned with the little d or i or r that comes after a candidate's name. I am interested in what that person has to offer me and people of my demographic. I am, in short, a political opportunist. I look out for me and mine. There are two things I ask a person who wants my support. Two very American questions.
1. What's in it for me?
2. What have you done for me lately?

For example, Beck has brought to the fore the interlocking nature of the leftwing media, the leftwing foundations, the leftwing intellectuals, the leftwing "community organizers", and of course their politicians. All but the last have been invisible to the average person, having been elucidated in only small circulation conservative magazines like NR. Further example, Beck has explained to the uninformed the 100 year infamous history of the progressives, something they obviously wouldn't have heard a peep about in their government school textbooks.

If you are uninterested in this country's actual history, and how the leftwing juggernaut which is destroying this country works, you won't be interested in Beck, but many other people should be and are.

 

[Feihu]

Like I said, if you like "in you face TV" left or right I have no bone to pick but to tell me that these people are any more than entertainers is giving them way more than their honest due. Again I stress this is not only with those who play to the right but the other side of the coin like Olbermann, Maddow, Mathews or Frankin when he was doing the same thing and making big bucks. If Beck pointed out something that you didn't know on some occasion that's fine but to me along with the others don't tell me anything that hasn't been out there for a long time. What they won't tell you, either side as well as your text books is how you can be a part of the system and benefit from it. These folks are not real movers and shakers they are first and foremost, and I repeat what Limbaugh has pointed out more than once, nothing more than entertainers who use politics as their scripting materials. As long as one doesn't take their word as gospel, that's fine. The free market allows you to put what you want on the market and to profit from it. I choose not to buy their product because IMO it lacks real quality.

BTW it's pretty evident that the actual history lies somewhere in between the Maddows and the Becks of the world. As far as education in state run systems, anywhere in the world, the purpose is the same, to create loyal citizens not necessarily informed citizens. That one must do on one's own for the most part. If you think this is not so just read about WWII in a 1948 textbook then read about it in a 2008 textbook. I'll bet you see right off that written history changes over time.

In the final analysis and for the most part, many will do what ever floats their boat or makes them feel good. For me, I prefer the truth even if I don't like it. That way I can adjust to the actual situation and try to use it to my advantage. Others have the right to do as they please.

 

[Rick]

Like I said, if you like "in you face TV" left or right I have no bone to pick but to tell me that these people are any more than entertainers is giving them way more than their honest due.

Simply not supported by the facts. You offer no facts or arguments. You are picking up and regurgitating a standard theme of lib media propaganda - that any conservative commentator is "entertainment".

 

[Feihu]

Simply not supported by the facts. You offer no facts or arguments. You are picking up and regurgitating a standard theme of lib media propaganda - that any conservative commentator is "entertainment".

The proof is in that the people I mentioned are charlatans is in the content of their work. For every conservative hack I mentioned I equated that with a liberal hack of similar bent. You have ignored that in your haste to label what cannot be labeled. You are taken in by the over emotional approach of these people be they liberals or conservatives. But let's talk about solid conservative commentators.You have not once mentioned those who are responsible conservative commentators of value like George Will, Charles Krauthammer (some-what of a firebrand but very knowledgeable), Clarence Page, Pat Buchanan or J.C. Watts. Yes these people don't have daily shows on TV because they have no entertainment value and they are too serious. The entertainers I mentioned, conservative or liberal, do not even deserve to be at the same table as those I have just mentioned. They would be totally out of their league.

As for liberals there are just a handful who are open minded or as open minded as one can be in this politically polarized society. Maybe Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert and Maureen Dowd, and E.J. Dionne Jr. and Eugene Robinson. But the non-thinkers on the left prefer the same kind of entertainment as those on the right. They drool over the Olbermanns, Maddows while ignoring more knowledgeable minds.

MSM will not go to these people who know because they don't want to make waves that will upset the network executives.


You want entertainment but not real facts. My proof and arguments are there you just prefer not to admit it or see it. Again that's your choice. Go for it.

 

[Gipper]

The proof is in that the people I mentioned are charlatans is in the content of their work. For every conservative hack I mentioned I equated that with a liberal hack of similar bent. You have ignored that in your haste to label what cannot be labeled. You are taken in by the over emotional approach of these people be they liberals or conservatives. But let's talk about solid conservative commentators.You have not once mentioned those who are responsible conservative commentators of value like George Will, Charles Krauthammer (some-what of a firebrand but very knowledgeable), Clarence Page, Pat Buchanan or J.C. Watts. Yes these people don't have daily shows on TV because they have no entertainment value and they are too serious. The entertainers I mentioned, conservative or liberal, do not even deserve to be at the same table as those I have just mentioned. They would be totally out of their league.

As for liberals there are just a handful who are open minded or as open minded as one can be in this politically polarized society. Maybe Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert and Maureen Dowd, and E.J. Dionne Jr. and Eugene Robinson. But the non-thinkers on the left prefer the same kind of entertainment as those on the right. They drool over the Olbermanns, Maddows while ignoring more knowledgeable minds.

MSM will not go to these people who know because they don't want to make waves that will upset the network executives.


You want entertainment but not real facts. My proof and arguments are there you just prefer not to admit it or see it. Again that's your choice. Go for it.

Can you please post a few lies or distortions promoted by Beck or Limbaugh? They must lie every day right? So, it should be easy for you to find and post here.

And, those so called "open minded" individuals on the left you list, they are not open minded at all. They are hard core lefties who are actively promoting left wing causes. That is their right in a free society, but calling them "open minded" is absurd and exposes your left wing philosophy.

 

[Feihu]

here.

And, those so called "open minded" individuals on the left you list, they are not open minded at all. They are hard core lefties who are actively promoting left wing causes. That is their right in a free society, but calling them "open minded" is absurd and exposes your left wing philosophy.

But the ones I mentioned on the right are OK? That is the response of a 20 percenter. That is not an insult. A 20%er is one who espouses the idea "my team right or wrong". It comes from the idea that 20 percent is about the base core of each political ideology. They are people who will vote their party's ticket no matter what and will, with false indignity, attack anyone who disagrees. They are present in ALL political parties and are the gasoline that makes the party run. I disagree with the idea but then ...it's a free choice. Anyone obviously who does not agree with ALL of your hard right philosophy must then be a hard left die hard fanatic liberal. That type of thinking is naive at best and absurd at most. Expose me!! LOL. Julian Assange could use your talents.

 

[Gipper]

But the ones I mentioned on the right are OK? That is the response of a 20 percenter. That is not an insult. A 20%er is one who espouses the idea "my team right or wrong". It comes from the idea that 20 percent is about the base core of each political ideology. They are people who will vote their party's ticket no matter what and will, with false indignity, attack anyone who disagrees. They are present in ALL political parties and are the gasoline that makes the party run. I disagree with the idea but then ...it's a free choice. Anyone obviously who does not agree with ALL of your hard right philosophy must then be a hard left die hard fanatic liberal. That type of thinking is naive at best and absurd at most. Expose me!! LOL. Julian Assange could use your talents.

Did I say I agree with everything right wing talkers say? You make assumptions.

But, you are the one who claims Beck and Rush lie all the time.

Can you please back up your accusation with facts?

 

[Feihu]

Did I say I agree with everything right wing talkers say? You make assumptions.

But, you are the one who claims Beck and Rush lie all the time.

Can you please back up your accusation with facts?

Where did I use the word "lie". I don't think I did and certainly not in the case of Limbaugh. I simply said that he has often admitted that "in your face" radio and TV are entertainment and that he himself does not deny that a great part of his presentation is such. They tell only one side of the issue maybe but outright lies I never said. If that's what you gleaned from my posts it is inaccurate. The other side does the same thing so, and I did say it, the real truth lies somewhere in between and it is the task of the listener to dig out that truth. You just can't accept blindly what the pundits say because they all have an agenda and it is not to their advantage to reveal what doesn't support their agenda. So they don't lie they just give you half truths or better yet incomplete truths.

As far as my stance goes it's common that die hard libs say I am too conservative and die hard cons say I am too liberal. I said it right out at the beginning I am a political opportunist. I go for what ever will work for me. If you find that too selfish just look around. That's what most people do. They just wont or don't admit it. I even get people who call me a Fascist but that is because they cannot differentiate between mid 20th century Fascism and modern day corporatism. They may look similar on the surface but they are quite different.

On edit: I also didn't say or assume that you agree with everything that RW talkers say. I did say that your comments in one particular post appear as those of a 20%er on this particular subject but I didn't say you are a 20%er. That's because I don't know that for a fact.

 

[Rick]

The proof is in that the people I mentioned are charlatans is in the content of their work.

You keep calling them names, but offer no proof.

For every conservative hack I mentioned I equated that with a liberal hack of similar bent.

That you are a non-partisan defamer doesn't change the fact that you are a defamer.

You have ignored that in your haste to label what cannot be labeled. You are taken in by the over emotional approach of these people be they liberals or conservatives.

No, I'm taken in my Beck's facts and arguments, but most of his stuff I already knew.

But let's talk about solid conservative commentators.You have not once mentioned those who are responsible conservative commentators of value like George Will, Charles Krauthammer (some-what of a firebrand but very knowledgeable), Clarence Page, Pat Buchanan or J.C. Watts. Yes these people don't have daily shows on TV because they have no entertainment value and they are too serious. The entertainers I mentioned, conservative or liberal, do not even deserve to be at the same table as those I have just mentioned. They would be totally out of their league.

Buchanan is a borderline anti-semite, and who knows what you mean by "responsible"? What did Beck ever say that's irresponsible? Come on, get down to brass tacks - speak up with facts or quit the bad mouthing of people.

As for liberals there are just a handful who are open minded

What do you mean by "open minded"? Usually, people use it to mean "not in possession of a definite opion", as if that were somehow a virtue.

You want entertainment but not real facts. My proof and arguments are there you just prefer not to admit it or see it.

If they are "there", they must be invisible - all you've done in this thread is cast aspersions.

 

[Feihu]

When a person makes money off of the public he leaves himself open to criticism. It comes with the package. What I dislike I dislike. If you have another opinion, THAT I don't criticize. It's your choice. I don't criticize it. Any defaming is the fault of the person who goes to the edge and allows him or herself to be in that position. If you don't see the discrepancies between these hacks and the others, I repeat, that's your choice. The proof is in the pudding that you don't want to eat. So be it.

You say, for example, that Buchanan is an anti-Semite for example. You didn't offer any proof of that yet you demand proof of what others say . It's your opinion. Aren't you "defaming" with that kind of statement? Or is it you want to apply one standard to me and another to yourself?

 

[Rick]

When a person makes money off of the public he leaves himself open to criticism. It comes with the package. What I dislike I dislike. If you have another opinion, THAT I don't criticize. It's your choice. I don't criticize it. Any defaming is the fault of the person who goes to the edge and allows him or herself to be in that position. If you don't see the discrepancies between these hacks and the others, I repeat, that's your choice. The proof is in the pudding that you don't want to eat. So be it.

So now, instead of repudiating with FACTS my charge that you are a defamer, you just say defamation goes with the territory for a public figure, as if that exculpates the defamer.

You say, for example, that Buchanan is an anti-Semite for example. You didn't offer any proof of that yet you demand proof of what others say . It's your opinion. Aren't you "defaming" with that kind of statement? Or is it you want to apply one standard to me and another to yourself?

Nonsense, the thread isn't about Buchanan, but here are some FACTS:

Buchanan referred to Capitol Hill as "Israeli-occupied territory."
(St. Louis Post Dispatch, 10/20/90)

During the Gulf crisis: "There are only two groups that are beating
the drums for war in the Middle East -- the Israeli defense ministry and
its 'amen corner' in the United States." ("McLaughlin Group," 8/26/90)

In a 1977 column, Buchanan said that despite Hitler's anti-Semitic and
genocidal tendencies, he was "an individual of great courage...Hitler's
success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an
intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness
masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood
in his path." (The Guardian, 1/14/92)

Writing of "group fantasies of martyrdom," Buchanan challenged the
historical record that thousands of Jews were gassed to death by diesel
exhaust at Treblinka: "Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide
to kill anybody." (New Republic, 10/22/90) Buchanan's columns have run in
the Liberty Lobby's Spotlight, the German-American National PAC newsletter
and other publications that claim Nazi death camps are a Zionist
concoction.

Buchanan called for closing the U.S. Justice Department's Office of
Special Investigations, which prosecuted Nazi war criminals, because it was
"running down 70-year-old camp guards." (New York Times, 4/21/87)

Buchanan was vehement in pushing President Reagan -- despite protests
-- to visit Germany's Bitburg cemetery, where Nazi SS troops were buried.
At a White House meeting, Buchanan reportedly reminded Jewish leaders that
they were "Americans first" -- and repeatedly scrawled the phrase
"Succumbing to the pressure of the Jews" in his notebook. Buchanan was
credited with crafting Ronald Reagan's line that the SS troops buried at
Bitburg were "victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration
camps." (New York Times, 5/16/85; New Republic, 1/22/96)

After Cardinal O'Connor criticized anti-Semitism during the
controversy over construction of a convent near Auschwitz, Buchanan wrote:
"If U.S. Jewry takes the clucking appeasement of the Catholic cardinalate
as indicative of our submission, it is mistaken. When Cardinal O'Connor of
New York seeks to soothe the always irate Elie Wiesel by reassuring him
'there are many Catholics who are anti-Semitic'...he speaks for himself. Be
not afraid, Your Eminence; just step aside, there are bishops and priests
ready to assume the role of defender of the faith." (New Republic,
10/22/90)

The Buchanan '96 campaign's World Wide Web site included an article
blaming the death of White House aide Vincent Foster on the Israeli
intelligence agency, Mossad -- and alleging that Foster and Hillary
Clinton were Mossad spies. (The campaign removed the article after its
existence was reported by a Jewish on-line news service; Jewish Telegraphic
Agency, 2/21/96.)