Did you hear the latest? Newt Gingrich is apparently most unhappy about Fox News's coverage of him. Can you say "I've essentially heard it all now, folks"? I certainly can.
I'm just looking at this now, so dmarks made his correction in time... otherwise you could have been certain that I'd be flaming away... I mean that sarcastically, of course. This "spelling flame" nonsense is something dmarks made up. Or imagined. Who knows when it comes to this nut.
I am a big Cenk Uygur fan, btw. Given that dmarks constantly says I like it when MSNBC pundits lie, so long as the lies benefit my side... you'd think I wouldn't like Mr. Uygur.
As for who is responsible for the compliant news media, I dispute that it's the "ruling elite", which our country does not have. It's the wealthy elites (via their corporations) that pay for the compliant news media.
The "compliant news media" in the form of the "liberal" New York Times also reported in the late 1990's during the Clinton years , ALL OF THE RUMORS AND INNUENDO surrounding the Lewinsky scandal.
Did you complain then about the slanted news media? Or are they slanted only when they're criticizing the right?
Shaw, your points are well taken. I would just counsel you that warring has never been an exclusively conservative propensity and that often people on the right (or at least what used to be the right) have often been the most reticent; Ike and Colin Powell, to name a couple.......Les, I miss Wallace and Russert like you wouldn't believe and, so, yes, I concur to the nines/whole-heartedly.
"Rational" Nation: Objectivism 101 is available in many learning formats. I suggest you avail yourself of one or several of them.
Is that how you were indoctrinated?
dmarks: Marxism for Sociopaths is much more likely, as so many sociopaths do embrace Marxism.
Similar to how many sociopaths embrace Libertarianism. They're both fringe ideologies adhered to by crazies (or people who are misguided, at the very least).
WD - Hilarious, coming from you, a one dimensional foaming at the mouth ideological partisan statist that is obviously suffering from cataracts of the mind.
Les, wd is clearly stereotyping Libertarians here. For instance, if he ever put down the hate manual long enough, he'd actually learn that Mr. Hayek believed in universal health care. And he flat-out should already know that Mr.s Johnson and Paul are probably a hell of a lot closer to him on foreign policy and civil liberties than frigging Obama is.
wD said: "Similar to how many sociopaths embrace Libertarianism"
It is quite clear here that you quickly posted an angry retort comment without thinking of it.
Libertarian sociopaths are few and far between compared to the Marxist ones. And the damage they do is minute compared to the typical death toll and atrocity done by Marxists. Of course, we all know this. Those of us who are informed, anyway.
20 comments:
Rest assured there will be no similar disastisfaction from the Obama camp out the coverage from MSNBC.
Before I get hit with a spelling flame, out = about.
That's why they got rid of that Uygur fellow. He criticized the President too much.
That's what the ruling elite require: a compliant news media.
I'm just looking at this now, so dmarks made his correction in time... otherwise you could have been certain that I'd be flaming away... I mean that sarcastically, of course. This "spelling flame" nonsense is something dmarks made up. Or imagined. Who knows when it comes to this nut.
I am a big Cenk Uygur fan, btw. Given that dmarks constantly says I like it when MSNBC pundits lie, so long as the lies benefit my side... you'd think I wouldn't like Mr. Uygur.
As for who is responsible for the compliant news media, I dispute that it's the "ruling elite", which our country does not have. It's the wealthy elites (via their corporations) that pay for the compliant news media.
How quickly you forget.
The "compliant news media" were all for going to war with Iraq based on what the Bush administration said were Saddam's WMDs. The New York Times published all of Judith Miller's stories that pumped up the Bush administration's talking points.
The "compliant news media" in the form of the "liberal" New York Times also reported in the late 1990's during the Clinton years , ALL OF THE RUMORS AND INNUENDO surrounding the Lewinsky scandal.
Did you complain then about the slanted news media? Or are they slanted only when they're criticizing the right?
Just wondering...
"I dispute that it's the "ruling elite", which our country does not have."
Someone missed Civics 101. Yes, you WD
Get real Shaw. It now, and has been for some time all about ratings and the $'s that entails.
I'm going to ne crude right now so please remove the children from the room . The present media conglomerate is just a huge pool of sluts.
Damn I miss the days of Mike Wallace, Walter Cronkite, and Huntley and Brinkley. Those were the days of journalistic integrity.
Just a wild observation on my part, WD missed Civics 101, as well as a boat load of other stuff apparently.
But even given this I'm betting the dude would be a gas have a few beers with. :)
Shaw, your points are well taken. I would just counsel you that warring has never been an exclusively conservative propensity and that often people on the right (or at least what used to be the right) have often been the most reticent; Ike and Colin Powell, to name a couple.......Les, I miss Wallace and Russert like you wouldn't believe and, so, yes, I concur to the nines/whole-heartedly.
"Rational" Nation: ...WD missed Civics 101, as well as a boat load of other stuff apparently.
Objectivism 101? Ayn Rand for Sociopaths? Neither were offered.
Ayn Rand for Sociopaths is not offered anywhere I'm sure. But I never checked it out. Not surprised at all that you obviously did.
Objectivism 101 is available in many learning formats. I suggest you avail yourself of one or several of them. You can undoubtedly need them.
Ayn Rand for Sociopaths? Proposterous. Marxism for Sociopaths is much more likely, as so many sociopaths do embrace Marxism.
"Rational" Nation: Objectivism 101 is available in many learning formats. I suggest you avail yourself of one or several of them.
Is that how you were indoctrinated?
dmarks: Marxism for Sociopaths is much more likely, as so many sociopaths do embrace Marxism.
Similar to how many sociopaths embrace Libertarianism. They're both fringe ideologies adhered to by crazies (or people who are misguided, at the very least).
WD - Hilarious, coming from you, a one dimensional foaming at the mouth ideological partisan statist that is obviously suffering from cataracts of the mind.
Les, wd is clearly stereotyping Libertarians here. For instance, if he ever put down the hate manual long enough, he'd actually learn that Mr. Hayek believed in universal health care. And he flat-out should already know that Mr.s Johnson and Paul are probably a hell of a lot closer to him on foreign policy and civil liberties than frigging Obama is.
So sad that he's always such a whole-loaf fellow.
"whole-loaf fellow."
Is that someone who is loafing all the time?
wD said: "Similar to how many sociopaths embrace Libertarianism"
It is quite clear here that you quickly posted an angry retort comment without thinking of it.
Libertarian sociopaths are few and far between compared to the Marxist ones. And the damage they do is minute compared to the typical death toll and atrocity done by Marxists. Of course, we all know this. Those of us who are informed, anyway.
Post a Comment