POLL: What do you expect from the major media?

[JoeB131]

All I said was that they were right regarding unlimited democracy. They realized that sane people wouldn't consent to a government that could do anything to them in the name of majority rule. If there aren't dependable limits on government power, you get what we have now - a democracy that routinely threatens the rights of the minority.

Whatever, guy. The problem isn't Democracy, it's plutocracy. We let the rich have too much power. The Founding Slave Rapists were plutocrats. They believed in government by the rich, for the rich and of the rich.

Again, Libertarians are people who like civilization, they just don't like the obligations that go along with it.

 

[dblack]

Again, Libertarians are people who like civilization, they just don't like the obligations that go along with it.

Again, that's your tired old strawman. But it makes you feel better about your fascist leanings - so go ahead and roll with that.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, that's your tired old strawman. But it makes you feel better about your fascist leanings - so go ahead and roll with that.

I call it being "civilized".

The thing is, you wouldn't want to live in the kind of anarchy you propose. You just don't want to do the things to keep that civilization thing going. Let the other guy do it.

 

[ChrisL]

Let's first define "major media" fairly specifically: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times.

From what I've seen here on several threads, it appears we don't expect our major media to provide a comprehensive, objective look at the news any more. Lefties defend CNN and MSBNC's bias by attacking FOX. Righties do the opposite. Neither side appears to claim at this point that their favored sources are unbiased.

Me, I'd like to see a comprehensive look at the news, and I'll draw my own conclusions and seek out my own details.
.

/-----/ Your question is a bit misleading. By "expect" do you mean prefer or what I think they will do? By expect, I know they will twist and distort the news to fit their agenda. I prefer for them to report the facts so I can decide for myself.

I agree and we it is already happening and happens every single day even when there is no BIG news for them to report on. I don't really trust any of them anymore. They all seem to have an ulterior motive and an agenda.

 

[dblack]

Again, that's your tired old strawman. But it makes you feel better about your fascist leanings - so go ahead and roll with that.

I call it being "civilized".

The thing is, you wouldn't want to live in the kind of anarchy you propose. You just don't want to do the things to keep that civilization thing going. Let the other guy do it.

You're preoccupied with telling me what I am and what I believe, while ignoring what I'm actually saying. Classic bigotry.

What I said was that the founders were right to recognize that government needs to be limited for democracy to work. But you haven't responded to that observation at all. You just sit there stroking your stereotypes. It's easier I suppose.

 

[JoeB131]

What I said was that the founders were right to recognize that government needs to be limited for democracy to work. But you haven't responded to that observation at all. You just just sit their stroking your stereotypes. It's easier I suppose.

I know that is what you said, but it was stupid. Which is why the government had to expand to deal with complex issues.

The bunch of guys showing up with their squirrel guns didn't work, which is why we need a professional army.

Complex public works need complex government. Shitting in a chamber pot works okay if you live in a little village, but you need some serious sanitation to keep cities of millions from becoming plague dens.

 

[dblack]

What I said was that the founders were right to recognize that government needs to be limited for democracy to work. But you haven't responded to that observation at all. You just just sit their stroking your stereotypes. It's easier I suppose.

I know that is what you said, but it was stupid. Which is why the government had to expand to deal with complex issues.

How is the concept of limited government stupid? Without limits on the power of the majority, minorities have no real security. If Christians can vote to kill Muslims (or imprison them, or put them on watch-lists or whatever) - Muslims have no security and reason to go along with such a government. Without sane limits on government power, government impacts everything, and controlling government becomes, literally, a life and death struggle.

 

[Meathead]

Ahhh, another Pompous Mac being self-righteous thread.

Okay, as I explained on the other thread, this is about "Corn Flakes"

View attachment 178495

You see, there used to be a time when journalism used to be considered a public service. Networks didn't make money on their nightly news program, they were just there to report the news. If you wanted to sell corn flakes, that what Gilligan's Island was for, and if Gilligan wasn't selling enough corn flakes, cancel him and put something else on! The news was expected to take a loss. This philosophy and why they came to hate it in boardrooms were savagely satirized in the movie Network.

To be fair, though, Howard Beale comes off relatively sedate compared to Maddow or Hannity.

So what happened was that the networks decided that news was going to be about making money! How do you make money? Attract an audience! How do you attract an audience? Figure out why people watch your show and give them more of that. And like any other business, cut expenses like actual reporters going out doing investigations.

So yes, Pompous Mac will get on here and lament that Fox and MSNBC and CNN will give their audiences what they want. (I think of the three, CNN is trying to actually do journalism, but they are biased.)

I do think that journalism has a left wing bent overall. You ask a kid why they become journalism majors, before 90% of them end up serving coffee at Starbucks, and they'll tell you it's because they want to change the world.

Nor is this entirely a new thing. Hey, you all remember when Walter Cronkite got up there and denounced the Vietnam War as "lost" after the Tet Offensive? It didn't matter that the Viet Cong had been utterly smashed, Cronkite said the war was lost, and he was the most trusted man in America.

when we gave the media THAT kind of power, now you act surprised when the corporations that own the media abuse it?

So here's what I do. I read a lot of right wing sources, and then I read left wing sources. I did this when I used to be a Republican, and do that now. Kind of see what everyone is thinking.

Seriously, you think CNN is journalism?

I knew you had several screws loose, but I had no idea it was this bad.

 

[JoeB131]

How is the concept of limited government stupid? Without limits on the power of the majority, minorities have no real security. If Christians can vote to kill Muslims (or imprison them, or put them on watch-lists or whatever) - Muslims have no security and reason to go along with such a government.

Except that nothing stops that from happening now other than most Christians aren't comfortable with mass murder. If they ever did become okay with that, it would probably happen.

Again- Japanese Americans 1942. We all feel really bad about that now, but at the time, everyone was kind of okay with it.

Without sane limits on government power, government impacts everything, and controlling government becomes, literally, a life and death struggle.

The problem with you Libertarian CHILDREN is that you think government is a big monster hiding in your closet.

Government is us, at the end of the day. No government, no matter how tyrannical, can exist without the tacit support of it's people.

Again, the Good Germans never showed up. They fought for Hitler up until the last old man and little boy.

And that so many Americans are going along with the Trump insanity shows we aren't much better.

 

[ChrisL]

Ahhh, another Pompous Mac being self-righteous thread.

Okay, as I explained on the other thread, this is about "Corn Flakes"

View attachment 178495

You see, there used to be a time when journalism used to be considered a public service. Networks didn't make money on their nightly news program, they were just there to report the news. If you wanted to sell corn flakes, that what Gilligan's Island was for, and if Gilligan wasn't selling enough corn flakes, cancel him and put something else on! The news was expected to take a loss. This philosophy and why they came to hate it in boardrooms were savagely satirized in the movie Network.

To be fair, though, Howard Beale comes off relatively sedate compared to Maddow or Hannity.

So what happened was that the networks decided that news was going to be about making money! How do you make money? Attract an audience! How do you attract an audience? Figure out why people watch your show and give them more of that. And like any other business, cut expenses like actual reporters going out doing investigations.

So yes, Pompous Mac will get on here and lament that Fox and MSNBC and CNN will give their audiences what they want. (I think of the three, CNN is trying to actually do journalism, but they are biased.)

I do think that journalism has a left wing bent overall. You ask a kid why they become journalism majors, before 90% of them end up serving coffee at Starbucks, and they'll tell you it's because they want to change the world.

Nor is this entirely a new thing. Hey, you all remember when Walter Cronkite got up there and denounced the Vietnam War as "lost" after the Tet Offensive? It didn't matter that the Viet Cong had been utterly smashed, Cronkite said the war was lost, and he was the most trusted man in America.

when we gave the media THAT kind of power, now you act surprised when the corporations that own the media abuse it?

So here's what I do. I read a lot of right wing sources, and then I read left wing sources. I did this when I used to be a Republican, and do that now. Kind of see what everyone is thinking.

Seriously, you think CNN is journalism?

I knew you had several screws loose, but I had no idea it was this bad.

I've known for a while now. Lol.

 

[dblack]

How is the concept of limited government stupid? Without limits on the power of the majority, minorities have no real security. If Christians can vote to kill Muslims (or imprison them, or put them on watch-lists or whatever) - Muslims have no security and reason to go along with such a government.

Except that nothing stops that from happening now other than most Christians aren't comfortable with mass murder. If they ever did become okay with that, it would probably happen.

That's demonstrably wrong. Even in it's current watered-down state, the limits on government imposed by the Constitution do keep this kind of thing from happening. The Court makes mistakes, but constitutional limits give them the ability to strike down the excesses of majority rule.

Are you really coming out against the First Amendment? Would you eliminate the Bill of Rights if you could?

Without sane limits on government power, government impacts everything, and controlling government becomes, literally, a life and death struggle.

The problem with you Libertarian CHILDREN is ...

Listen, Joe. I get that you have sour grapes from previous conversations we've had, but let's focus on this conversation. Maybe you could send me the personal insults in PM or something?

 

[ChrisL]

How is the concept of limited government stupid? Without limits on the power of the majority, minorities have no real security. If Christians can vote to kill Muslims (or imprison them, or put them on watch-lists or whatever) - Muslims have no security and reason to go along with such a government.

Except that nothing stops that from happening now other than most Christians aren't comfortable with mass murder. If they ever did become okay with that, it would probably happen.

That's demonstrably wrong. Even in it's current watered-down state, the limits on government imposed by the Constitution do keep this kind of thing from happening. The Court makes mistakes, but constitutional limits give them the ability to strike down the excesses of majority rule.

Are you really coming out against the First Amendment? Would you eliminate the Bill of Rights if you could?

Without sane limits on government power, government impacts everything, and controlling government becomes, literally, a life and death struggle.

The problem with you Libertarian CHILDREN is ...

Listen, Joe. I know you have sour grapes from previous conversations we've had, but let's focus on this conversation. Maybe you could send me the personal insults in PM or something?

Have you never spoken with Joey before? Of course he would eliminate the Bill of Rights! He WANTS the government to have control over us, all the while telling us that Trump (the POTUS) is a Nazi and cops are evil murdering racists.

He says all of these things are better than the general population owning guns.

 

[dblack]

Have you never spoken with Joey before? Of course he would eliminate the Bill of Rights! He WANTS the government to have control over us, all the while telling us that Trump (the POTUS) is a Nazi and cops are evil murdering racists.

He says all of these things are better than the general population owning guns.

That's funny. Because I agree with him on Trump (maybe not a Nazi, but an unhinged, ego-maniac, at least), some cops are murdering racists (it's a real problem) and I don't want to walk around armed to the teeth to feel secure.

Maybe that's why I haven't given up on him just yet.

 

[Cellblock2429]

How is the concept of limited government stupid? Without limits on the power of the majority, minorities have no real security. If Christians can vote to kill Muslims (or imprison them, or put them on watch-lists or whatever) - Muslims have no security and reason to go along with such a government.

Except that nothing stops that from happening now other than most Christians aren't comfortable with mass murder. If they ever did become okay with that, it would probably happen.

Again- Japanese Americans 1942. We all feel really bad about that now, but at the time, everyone was kind of okay with it.

Without sane limits on government power, government impacts everything, and controlling government becomes, literally, a life and death struggle.

The problem with you Libertarian CHILDREN is that you think government is a big monster hiding in your closet.

Government is us, at the end of the day. No government, no matter how tyrannical, can exist without the tacit support of it's people.

Again, the Good Germans never showed up. They fought for Hitler up until the last old man and little boy.

And that so many Americans are going along with the Trump insanity shows we aren't much better.

/----/ Left wing idiotic analogy.

 

[ChrisL]

Have you never spoken with Joey before? Of course he would eliminate the Bill of Rights! He WANTS the government to have control over us, all the while telling us that Trump (the POTUS) is a Nazi and cops are evil murdering racists.

He says all of these things are better than the general population owning guns.

That's funny. Because I agree with him on Trump (maybe not a Nazi, but an unhinged, ego-maniac, at least), some cops are murdering racists (it's a real problem) and I don't want to walk around armed to the teeth to feel secure.

Maybe that's why I haven't given up on him just yet.

So Trump is a Nazi, the cops are murdering racists, and the public should be unarmed. ROFL. Makes sense to an utterly inane person, I suppose.

 

[dblack]

Have you never spoken with Joey before? Of course he would eliminate the Bill of Rights! He WANTS the government to have control over us, all the while telling us that Trump (the POTUS) is a Nazi and cops are evil murdering racists.

He says all of these things are better than the general population owning guns.

That's funny. Because I agree with him on Trump (maybe not a Nazi, but an unhinged, ego-maniac, at least), some cops are murdering racists (it's a real problem) and I don't want to walk around armed to the teeth to feel secure.

Maybe that's why I haven't given up on him just yet.

So Trump is a Nazi, the cops are murdering racists, and the public should be unarmed. ROFL. Makes sense to an utterly inane person, I suppose.

Huh.. well, I could explain my views if you like. Or, you can just write me off as an utterly inane person. Or, worse, a libertarian!

 

[JoeB131]

Seriously, you think CNN is journalism?

I knew you had several screws loose, but I had no idea it was this bad.

Oh, I guess you think Glenn beck is journalism? Or maybe in your case, Stormfront.

 

[ChrisL]

Sorry liberals but you created an environment of distrust in police, government and authorities. But now that you want something else, you want to go back on that. Too late. You create more problems than you solve. You really need to just let other people who are more "considerate" deal with serious issues. Just do what you are good at . . . nothing.

 

[Crixus]

Let's first define "major media" fairly specifically: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times.

From what I've seen here on several threads, it appears we don't expect our major media to provide a comprehensive, objective look at the news any more. Lefties defend CNN and MSBNC's bias by attacking FOX. Righties do the opposite. Neither side appears to claim at this point that their favored sources are unbiased.

Me, I'd like to see a comprehensive look at the news, and I'll draw my own conclusions and seek out my own details.
.

 

[dblack]

Have you never spoken with Joey before? Of course he would eliminate the Bill of Rights! He WANTS the government to have control over us, all the while telling us that Trump (the POTUS) is a Nazi and cops are evil murdering racists.

He says all of these things are better than the general population owning guns.

That's funny. Because I agree with him on Trump (maybe not a Nazi, but an unhinged, ego-maniac, at least), some cops are murdering racists (it's a real problem) and I don't want to walk around armed to the teeth to feel secure.

Maybe that's why I haven't given up on him just yet.

So Trump is a Nazi, the cops are murdering racists, and the public should be unarmed. ROFL. Makes sense to an utterly inane person, I suppose.

It's funny. The form of your response is exactly the same as Joe's. Distort what a person says into a ridiculous strawman, and then dismiss them with a label. Throw stones much?