Oh fuck this ethical media shit... ATTACK!

[MaggieMae]

You'll have to educate me on Glenn Beck since I don't watch his program. You obviously do since you know so much about him.

In any case, your history lesson is sound. What you forgot to mention (and may not be aware of) is how, say, the Nazis were allowed to come to power in the first place. Fascism and socialism have common roots in central economic planning and the power of the state over the individual. That's what progressives believe. You see, they created the environment for the truly evil to come to power (like Hitler). It doesn't happen overnight and may take a generation to desensitize and prepare the general population for a takeover, but the inevitable outcome is nothing like what the progressives had hoped for. Look around. It's happening in the US now.

May I suggest you read the works of Alexis de Tocqueville. We have history repeating itself and we are letting it happen.

I apologize for the Beck crack. I'll make you a deal: you stop being condescending to me about "learning history", I'll stop with the Beck cracks.

But you're completely wrong about your analysis. It did happen "overnight". The German people weren't "desensitized" to stronger government, they DEMANDED it. The Nazi Party took power based on the failures of the Weimar Republic, a small, non-statist, ineffectual government.

I think they were demanding....."CHANGE".

And? Every new administration campaigns on bringing "change," even in modern American politics. If they didn't want CHANGE, they wouldn't run at all.

It's shocking how so many so-called "Americans" these days are quick to side with the motives of the real enemy, past and present, if they can make some sort of convoluted point that equates to something being done by the Obama Administration. It's gotten that sick.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The problem with you is that you do not want to see the truth. What's sad is that some people think, for example, the Germans were just inherently evil and that's the reason for Nazism. WRONG! They came to power because of central planning PROGRESSIVES! Learn your history, dude. It's not that hard and you won't come across as clueless.

Dude, I'm really not worried about coming across as clueless, since I do actually know what I'm talking about.

You see, I studied history at a real school, not the Glenn Beck College of History.

There were many factors that led to the rise of the Nazi Party in Germany.

A staggering defeat in WWI that crippled Germany economically and publicly. Germans were ashamed of the standing of their country at the time, a country that had been run into the ground by incompetant and weak leadership for the decades before. The German Workers Party took advantage of this by focusing on nationalism - basically the idea that Germans were superior humans, and the only reason everything was going badly were outside influences of weaker peoples (Jews, and Western Europe in general).

The Weimar Republic was financially broken by the Treaty of Versailles, and in general very corrupt, decadent, and ineffectual. Germany suffered from hyperinflation, open warfare between paramilitary organizations from the far right and the far left, and staggering financial problems from the Treaty, which had ordered reparations of around 153 billion marks. The NSDAP (commonly referred to as the Nazi Party) grew out of the aforementioned German Workers Party, and came into power in the early 1930s by election to the horribly corrupt Reichstag, eventually leading to Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in 1933.

That, combined with Hitler and company's staggering ability to propagandize led to the rise of the Nazi Party. The NSDAP found a way to channel one of humanity's greatest emotions - hatred and fear - into a political philosophy.

Not "progressives".

The word "progressive" doesn't even mean anything.

The dems "took advantage of this by focusing on (nationalism: make this rights/entitlements) - basically the idea that (Germans: make this intellectual elites) were superior humans, and the only reason everything was going badly were outside influences of weaker peoples" (the corrupt rich or wealthy/corporations). Looks the same to me.

No, actually, it doesn't make any sense. None at all.

 

[MaggieMae]

Piers Morgan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Morgan sacked from Daily Mirror | Media | MediaGuardian

Nooooo... he's perfectly innocent and unbiased. So was Marla Mapes and Valerie Plame. Remind me. Was George Stuffitupyourass a member of Clinton's staff? Oh that's right... he was. Do you expect me to believe people like that become non-partisan too when they spent a life as political hacks?

A regular British Dan Rather.

So what's he currently doing that pisses you off? I don't even watch him regularly, so I'm truly curious. Geezus, calm down, wouldya?

I'd still suggest that Morgan is probably less biased than, say, Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee, possible presidential candidates, who have been given their own shows on Fox. And George Stephanopoulos was replaced by Bill Clinton with <drumroll please> David Gergen, whom I believe was a speech writer for Ronald Reagan. Any other "comparisons" you'd like to make?

Looking for equivalency doesn't change the point. You want to give passes to the leftwing media while burning Fox to the ground.

Who on fox has been fired for perpetrating a hoax on another major paper or news outlet?

I don't know about a "hoax," but Fox certainly isn't above firing someone that might make them look bad. Wasn't there a woman reporter fired because she wouldn't lie about her relationship with Bernie whasshisname candidate for Homeland Security chief? I remember a big unlawful termination lawsuit at one time.

As for motive, I'd say by starting this thread, your intent was to "burn" Media Matters while giving a pass to Fox. You certainly shouldn't be surprised that the tables turned.