Our corrupt media

[bripat9643]

Public education needs competition. It is a taxpayer funded left wing "monopoly" that steals, lies, and produces dumbfuck morons who are hence more likely to require "government aide" and end up voting Dem...

So has the thought ever occurred to conservatives to open schools that really educate, and then America will vote Republican.
Problem solved.

Sure it has. They're called private schools.

Can private schools teach anything they want?

Why shouldn't they?

Could private schools teach that Social Security will lead to communism?

Sure. Why not? Don't government schools now teach that capitalism is the root of all evil?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So has the thought ever occurred to conservatives to open schools that really educate, and then America will vote Republican.
Problem solved.

Sure it has. They're called private schools.

Can private schools teach anything they want?

Why shouldn't they?

Could private schools teach that Social Security will lead to communism?

Sure. Why not? Don't government schools now teach that capitalism is the root of all evil?

Are you insane?

 

[bripat9643]

Sure it has. They're called private schools.

Can private schools teach anything they want?

Why shouldn't they?

Could private schools teach that Social Security will lead to communism?

Sure. Why not? Don't government schools now teach that capitalism is the root of all evil?

Are you insane?

No.

 

[regent]

As I said in an earlier post, the first time the federal government got involved in censoring the political media was after our second president Adams was elected. The conservative party, the Federalists, passed a law, the Sedition Act, making it illegal to criticize Adams or members of the Federalist party.
With Jefferson's election it was the end of that first conservative party, and the historical period became known as "The Era of Good Feelings."

 

[bripat9643]

As I said in an earlier post, the first time the federal government got involved in censoring the political media was after our second president Adams was elected. The conservative party, the Federalists, passed a law, the Sedition Act, making it illegal to criticize Adams or members of the Federalist party.
With Jefferson's election it was the end of that first conservative party, and the historical period became known as "The Era of Good Feelings."

What's your rational for calling Adams a "conservative?" If you ask me, he's a big government statist liberal.

 

[regent]

As I said in an earlier post, the first time the federal government got involved in censoring the political media was after our second president Adams was elected. The conservative party, the Federalists, passed a law, the Sedition Act, making it illegal to criticize Adams or members of the Federalist party.
With Jefferson's election it was the end of that first conservative party, and the historical period became known as "The Era of Good Feelings."

What's your rational for calling Adams a "conservative?" If you ask me, he's a big government statist liberal.

The size of government is usually not part of a political ideology. The size of government has a great deal to do with what the government is trying to achieve, and a number of other factors such as political patronage.

 

[bripat9643]

As I said in an earlier post, the first time the federal government got involved in censoring the political media was after our second president Adams was elected. The conservative party, the Federalists, passed a law, the Sedition Act, making it illegal to criticize Adams or members of the Federalist party.
With Jefferson's election it was the end of that first conservative party, and the historical period became known as "The Era of Good Feelings."

What's your rational for calling Adams a "conservative?" If you ask me, he's a big government statist liberal.

The size of government is usually not part of a political ideology. The size of government has a great deal to do with what the government is trying to achieve, and a number of other factors such as political patronage.

Yes, the size of government is part of political ideology. Those who want government to solve all social problems, like you, are asking for a big government. If, on the other hand, you believe in freedom, and you want government to leave you alone, you automatically support a small government. "Political patronage," corruption and crony capitalism are all manifestations of big government.

 

[regent]

As I said in an earlier post, the first time the federal government got involved in censoring the political media was after our second president Adams was elected. The conservative party, the Federalists, passed a law, the Sedition Act, making it illegal to criticize Adams or members of the Federalist party.
With Jefferson's election it was the end of that first conservative party, and the historical period became known as "The Era of Good Feelings."

What's your rational for calling Adams a "conservative?" If you ask me, he's a big government statist liberal.

The size of government is usually not part of a political ideology. The size of government has a great deal to do with what the government is trying to achieve, and a number of other factors such as political patronage.

Yes, the size of government is part of political ideology. Those who want government to solve all social problems, like you, are asking for a big government. If, on the other hand, you believe in freedom, and you want government to leave you alone, you automatically support a small government. "Political patronage," corruption and crony capitalism are all manifestations of big government.

So what Republican presidents have reduced the size of government the most? It must have been Reagan because he was so against big government.

 

[xyz]

Sure. Why not? Don't government schools now teach that capitalism is the root of all evil?

So that's your plan to destroy the establishment?

 

[Annie]

The media has no obligation to be 'fair and balanced,' nor have they ever been. Granted there was a time that editors made some attempt to keep blatant bias out of news stories, but that really was a short lived 'reform' movement in journalism.

Now the public has shown their awareness of the bias by pretty much abandoning newspapers, news magazines, network news-indeed it seems that much of the public really is either remaining ignorant or finding a variety of sources from both ends of bias and trying to draw some conclusions. Trust in media is about where it is for Trump and Clinton.

All the whining on 'media bias' is just that, whining. The same that are so angry right now, had no problem with the pro-Trump crap dished out during the primaries to get him the nomination. That they couldn't see the manipulation to bring him home as the nominee isn't on the media, but the fools that bought it.

 

[owebo]

The media has no obligation to be 'fair and balanced,' nor have they ever been. Granted there was a time that editors made some attempt to keep blatant bias out of news stories, but that really was a short lived 'reform' movement in journalism.

Now the public has shown their awareness of the bias by pretty much abandoning newspapers, news magazines, network news-indeed it seems that much of the public really is either remaining ignorant or finding a variety of sources from both ends of bias and trying to draw some conclusions. Trust in media is about where it is for Trump and Clinton.

All the whining on 'media bias' is just that, whining. The same that are so angry right now, had no problem with the pro-Trump crap dished out during the primaries to get him the nomination. That they couldn't see the manipulation to bring him home as the nominee isn't on the media, but the fools that bought it.

The MSM had little to do with Trump winning the primary.....to think so makes you a fool....

 

[candycorn]

The media has no obligation to be 'fair and balanced,' nor have they ever been. Granted there was a time that editors made some attempt to keep blatant bias out of news stories, but that really was a short lived 'reform' movement in journalism.

Now the public has shown their awareness of the bias by pretty much abandoning newspapers, news magazines, network news-indeed it seems that much of the public really is either remaining ignorant or finding a variety of sources from both ends of bias and trying to draw some conclusions. Trust in media is about where it is for Trump and Clinton.

All the whining on 'media bias' is just that, whining. The same that are so angry right now, had no problem with the pro-Trump crap dished out during the primaries to get him the nomination. That they couldn't see the manipulation to bring him home as the nominee isn't on the media, but the fools that bought it.

The MSM had little to do with Trump winning the primary.....to think so makes you a fool....

You're incredibly obtuse.

 

[owebo]

The media has no obligation to be 'fair and balanced,' nor have they ever been. Granted there was a time that editors made some attempt to keep blatant bias out of news stories, but that really was a short lived 'reform' movement in journalism.

Now the public has shown their awareness of the bias by pretty much abandoning newspapers, news magazines, network news-indeed it seems that much of the public really is either remaining ignorant or finding a variety of sources from both ends of bias and trying to draw some conclusions. Trust in media is about where it is for Trump and Clinton.

All the whining on 'media bias' is just that, whining. The same that are so angry right now, had no problem with the pro-Trump crap dished out during the primaries to get him the nomination. That they couldn't see the manipulation to bring him home as the nominee isn't on the media, but the fools that bought it.

The MSM had little to do with Trump winning the primary.....to think so makes you a fool....

You're incredibly obtuse.

Says the uneducated democrat tool....

 

[Redfish]

Actually this is an older phenomenon, pre-Trump, the Tea Party has been using certain videos to control minds, also using very aggressive tactics on the internet.

So basically what we are dealing with: on here there are perhaps also ideologues who don't believe what they type, but also people who really believe Obama is a Muslim Communist born in Kenya intent on spreading Islam and Atheistic Communism to the USA.

Not saying there aren't more moderate Trump supporters on here, but not as many are on the internet, the more moderate Trump supporters are not as much on the internet.

So it doesn't come as a surprise that the guy who punched the protester at the Trump rally said he was a terrorist; he truly believed it.

We are not dealing with a regular campaign, but with people who are so indoctrinated that it begins to resemble a religious cult more than anything else. Somewhat like Scientology, I suppose, but more dangerous. I wish I was joking...

valid comments, except that only the left resorts to violence. Could that be because they know that they cannot win a fair discussion?

Congratulations, you have said that only the left resorts to violence, in answer to my post which specifically mentioned a particular incident.





you have been proven a liar.

they were democrat plants. YOU are the liar.

 

[Redfish]

!. What federal laws did Hillary violate
2. When was the FBI and DOJ bribed?
3. The Clinton foundation is a charity- nothing goes to a Clinton bank account

The answer is NONE. Or she would have a conviction on her record.

I know the morons in Opposite World think it is self-evident that a woman with a clean record is magically a felon. But in the real world, she is not.

Comey established her guilt. Deciding not to prosecute for partisan reasons does not make her innocent.

 

[xyz]

they were democrat plants. YOU are the liar.

You are a plant, a vegetable to be precise.

 

[Iceweasel]

As I said in an earlier post, the first time the federal government got involved in censoring the political media was after our second president Adams was elected. The conservative party, the Federalists, passed a law, the Sedition Act, making it illegal to criticize Adams or members of the Federalist party.
With Jefferson's election it was the end of that first conservative party, and the historical period became known as "The Era of Good Feelings."

The conservative party? WTF, talk about revisionist. So the word Federalist isn't enough of a clue for you? Adams was a big central government guy. I think you said this shit before, someone said exactly the same thing.

If it was you, you are a retard. If you are just ignorant, go get a real education.

 

[Iceweasel]

The media has no obligation to be 'fair and balanced,' nor have they ever been. Granted there was a time that editors made some attempt to keep blatant bias out of news stories, but that really was a short lived 'reform' movement in journalism.

Now the public has shown their awareness of the bias by pretty much abandoning newspapers, news magazines, network news-indeed it seems that much of the public really is either remaining ignorant or finding a variety of sources from both ends of bias and trying to draw some conclusions. Trust in media is about where it is for Trump and Clinton.

All the whining on 'media bias' is just that, whining. The same that are so angry right now, had no problem with the pro-Trump crap dished out during the primaries to get him the nomination. That they couldn't see the manipulation to bring him home as the nominee isn't on the media, but the fools that bought it.

Why is it called whining if someone says something you don't like? I was alive then and saw the media critical of trump during the primaries. He got a lot of press time because of all his "colorful" comments but they were on his case from day one. There was no complicit media scheme except to polish Hillary as much as humanly possible.

 

[brummelben]

!. What federal laws did Hillary violate
2. When was the FBI and DOJ bribed?
3. The Clinton foundation is a charity- nothing goes to a Clinton bank account

The answer is NONE. Or she would have a conviction on her record.

I know the morons in Opposite World think it is self-evident that a woman with a clean record is magically a felon. But in the real world, she is not.

Comey established her guilt. Deciding not to prosecute for partisan reasons does not make her innocent.

Sorry, she was neither guilty nor did she lie. Deciding not to prosecute only affirms her innocence. To begin to speak of partisanship is only a feeble excuse of yours, and demonstrates your partisanship.

 

[HnL]

Comey established her guilt. Deciding not to prosecute for partisan reasons does not make her innocent.

He was crystal clear for the reason. He said there was NOT enough evidence to argue the case beyond a reasonable doubt.