Originally posted by Libertasplz

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Libertasplz

I slap my head at what Fishermage and a few others here call "real journalism". 

Enjoy your last few days of thinking the Republicans have a chance.

I will post here with glee next Tuesday as the excuse machine comes in.

 

I'm not a Republican, I don't support McCain, and I've been saying all along that Obama will probably win. At any rate, it seems you too would rather discuss other things and refuse to answer the question raised.

 

You know I'm sorry, but I don't believe you that you aren't voting for McCain.  I really don't.  To think that that is real journalism belies your real feelings more than the lip service you provide here.

 

So you still insist on making things personal instead of discussing issues? Interesting.

Originally posted by wonderwhoits

Watched the video.  That was pretty weak.  Loaded questions.  Bias.  Distortion.  Real Journailsm my ass.  Soooo tired of this shit.  Obama will be next POTUS.  Give up already.  You lost.

SUck on this.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1

quote

If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.

That isn't Sen. Obama's fault: His job is to put his best face forward. No, it is the traditional media's fault, for it alone (unlike the alternative media) has had the resources to cover this story properly, and has systematically refused to do so.

Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media?

end quote.

the article is 5 pages long.. there is so much in here that libs can't defend it's a joke to hear one talk about bias from the left.

You are exactly right, Fisher.  This is the type of questioning the McCain campaign routinely gets from the national media.  Imagine how interesting this election might be if they actually did their job and asked the Obama campaign these questions.

Dare to dream Zin...

Saw this on Neil Cavuto today and thought it was worth linking.  I'm glad it's already been posted on Youtube.  Neil is talking with Mike Papantonio, a radio talk show host on Air America.  If you watch it, listen to what Papantonio says 1:45 into the video.  He thinks Obama's Administration should punish the Orlando television station for conducting this interview with Biden after Obama takes office if he gets elected.  My jaw practically hit the floor.  I mean here you have the Obama campaign crying foul because this reporter asks if he is a Marxist, and this Obama supporter's response is the epitome of hardline Marxism.  Punish this televison station for daring to ask a provoking question.  Unbelievable!

Change we need?

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Saw this on Neil Cavuto today and thought it was worth linking.  I'm glad it's already been posted on Youtube.  Neil is talking with Mike Papantonio, a radio talk show host on Air America.  If you watch it, listen to what Papantonio says 1:45 into the video.  He thinks Obama's Administration should punish the Orlando television station for conducting this interview with Biden after Obama takes office if he gets elected.  My jaw practically hit the floor.  I mean here you have the Obama campaign crying foul because this reporter asks if he is a Marxist, and this Obama supporter's response is the epitome of hardline Marxism.  Punish this televison station for daring to ask a provoking question.  Unbelievable!

Change we need?

Yup, question the Anointed One and be crushed under his heel. Creepy, creepy stuff. We are not just talking about economic Marxism here.

Well, its nice too see biden in actual interviews... Unlike sarah palin.

That chick called obama a marxist, im surprised  Biden didnt go off on her. I dont care much for all that punishing station bullshit, the news is 90% bullshit these days anyway, liberal media, right wing media, what  happened too the media being about the peoeple and not the parties.

How many here have actually read KarL Marx's books before labeling anything "marxist"??  If "spreading wealth" is marxist, then every single revolution or uprising since dawn of human civilization has been marxist.  99.9% of people shouting "marxist" have zero idea what Marxism really is.

If anything, the national media have been too soft on McCain/Palin.  They haven't investigated deep enough Palin's (and her husband's) association with separatist group Alaska Independence Party.  They haven't shown us those anti-US propaganda films McCain made for Vietcong when he was a POW.  They haven't dwelled on McCain's association with G. Liddy & Keaton.  They didn't make too big a deal on Ashley Todd's hoax and its relation with McCain's campaign. 

Real Journalism without being backed by some special interest or corporations??  Sorry there is no such thing.

 real journalism is what you call 'investigative journalism' and it should not be opinion driven. 

this reporter might have a bias but when obama says 'spread the wealth' which sounds akin to marxism, isnt it best to ask the question that the other side is calling for? to satiate the naysayers?

for example, when palin was announced and team obama flew in 30 lawyers to alaska to start digging up the dirt the media was also there digging as well. the difference in the bias between the mainstream media and this reporter is not very different, is it?  

katie couric asked some questions and that ABC guy threw in a deliberate misquote to imply her own party thinks she is a retard, dumb etc. thats called a drive by. someone that doesnt follow politics or the media who was watching that interview, just got a drive by opinion given to her or him.

Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

Well, its nice too see biden in actual interviews... Unlike sarah palin.

 

That chick called obama a marxist, im surprised  Biden didnt go off on her. I dont care much for all that punishing station bullshit, the news is 90% bullshit these days anyway, liberal media, right wing media, what  happened too the media being about the peoeple and not the parties.

Actually, Sarah Palin has been more accessible and has done more interviews than Biden.

www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/20/politics/fromtheroad/entry4531447.shtml

Originally posted by Hellmarauder

How many here have actually read KarL Marx's books before labeling anything "marxist"??  If "spreading wealth" is marxist, then every single revolution or uprising since dawn of human civilization has been marxist.  99.9% of people shouting "marxist" have zero idea what Marxism really is.

 

If anything, the national media have been too soft on McCain/Palin.  They haven't investigated deep enough Palin's (and her husband's) association with separatist group Alaska Independence Party.  They haven't shown us those anti-US propaganda films McCain made for Vietcong when he was a POW.  They haven't dwelled on McCain's association with G. Liddy & Keaton.  They didn't make too big a deal on Ashley Todd's hoax and its relation with McCain's campaign. 

 

Real Journalism without being backed by some special interest or corporations??  Sorry there is no such thing.

I spent years studying Marxism, and studied under the great Marxist "sage" David H. DeGrood. Most revolutions have been about securing the rights of life, liberty, and property -- not of looting the wealth one one group and giving it to another.

Those are specifically Marxist revolutions. Obama is most definitely the product of a Marxist university upbringing -- he and I went to school at the same time and I can tell from his rhetoric where he gets it from. It isn't from John Locke.

Marx and Locke are more similar than different.  Both glorify labor as the highest form of human activity, and both beleve in popular revolution.

The redistribution of wealth is about as old of an idea as anything.  Plato talks about it as well as Aristotle.  Ancient histories are filled with examples of private advantage put before the public interest.  How could the Gracchi be marxist before Marx?

Originally posted by Beatnik59

Marx and Locke are more similar than different.  Both glorify labor as the highest form of human activity, and both beleve in popular revolution.

The redistribution of wealth is about as old of an idea as anything.  Plato talks about it as well as Aristotle.  Ancient histories are filled with examples of private advantage put before the public interest.  How could the Gracchi be marxist before Marx?

Just because the notion is ancient doesn't mean anything. In modern times, the term is a Marxist codeword.

Locke and Marx couldn't be more different. One believed in private property at the heart of his system, the other believed in its abolition. To say they both "glorified labor as the highest form of human activity" is simply irrelevant -- as is a belief in the notion of popular revolution. Their REASONING for such was quite opposite. Locke's was for individual rights, Marx was for collectivist ones (whicfh can't really exist, but that's afor another discussion).

They were similar because they were both human philosopers as well, but that's not relevant either.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Beatnik59

Marx and Locke are more similar than different.  Both glorify labor as the highest form of human activity, and both beleve in popular revolution.

The redistribution of wealth is about as old of an idea as anything.  Plato talks about it as well as Aristotle.  Ancient histories are filled with examples of private advantage put before the public interest.  How could the Gracchi be marxist before Marx?

 

Just because the notion is ancient doesn't mean anything. In modern times, the term is a Marxist codeword.

Locke and Marx couldn't be more different. One believed in private property at the heart of his system, the other believed in its abolition. To say they both "glorified labor as the highest form of human activity" is simply irrelevant -- as is a belief in the notion of popular revolution. Their REASONING for such was quite opposite. Locke's was for individual rights, Marx was for collectivist ones (whicfh can't really exist, but that's afor another discussion).

They were similar because they were both human philosopers as well, but that's not relevant either.

The fact that the redistribution of wealth has been argued since the beginning is important, because the arguments we see these days have their roots in something more fundamental than Marx or Locke.  This is about the "many" or the deimos versus the "few" or the oligos.  It's a conflict as old as society, which makes it older than the state.  From its very beginnings, the state was about solving societal issues, and neither the issues nor the politics have changed all that much.

And I maintain that Marx and Locke are more similar than different.  To both of them, man's productive capacity is all that's important; it's the most "human" thing human beings possess, which is why both of them structure their notions of justice around "things" as opposed to "virtues."  Both of them degrade human beings when they do this, because man's productive capacity is nothing special; it's something that they share with animals.  In short, Locke and Marx would rather human beings be the pig satisfied, than Socrates dissatisfied (to use Mill's phrase).

Not only that, but both Marx and Locke believed in private property, and that private property should be protected.  The difference is that Marx made the distinction between capital and private property; viewing the former as an instrument of social and political power, while understanding the need of the latter.  Not only that, but Locke believed that property could be made "common by compact," or that the people could decide to share the wealth of a given piece of property (2nd Treatise, ch. V, § 35).  Such arrangements may be necessary when there isn't "enough and as good" for all to use.

Originally posted by Beatnik59

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Beatnik59

Marx and Locke are more similar than different.  Both glorify labor as the highest form of human activity, and both beleve in popular revolution.

The redistribution of wealth is about as old of an idea as anything.  Plato talks about it as well as Aristotle.  Ancient histories are filled with examples of private advantage put before the public interest.  How could the Gracchi be marxist before Marx?

 

Just because the notion is ancient doesn't mean anything. In modern times, the term is a Marxist codeword.

Locke and Marx couldn't be more different. One believed in private property at the heart of his system, the other believed in its abolition. To say they both "glorified labor as the highest form of human activity" is simply irrelevant -- as is a belief in the notion of popular revolution. Their REASONING for such was quite opposite. Locke's was for individual rights, Marx was for collectivist ones (whicfh can't really exist, but that's afor another discussion).

They were similar because they were both human philosopers as well, but that's not relevant either.

 

The fact that the redistribution of wealth has been argued since the beginning is important, because the arguments we see these days have their roots in something more fundamental than Marx or Locke.  This is about the "many" or the deimos versus the "few" or the oligos.  It's a conflict as old as society, which makes it older than the state.  From its very beginnings, the state was about solving societal issues, and neither the issues nor the politics have changed all that much.

And I maintain that Marx and Locke are more similar than different.  To both of them, man's productive capacity is all that's important; it's the most "human" thing human beings possess, which is why both of them structure their notions of justice around "things" as opposed to "virtues."  Both of them degrade human beings when they do this, because man's productive capacity is nothing special; it's something that they share with animals.  In short, Locke and Marx would rather human beings be the pig satisfied, than Socrates dissatisfied (to use Mill's phrase).

Not only that, but both Marx and Locke believed in private property, and that private property should be protected.  The difference is that Marx made the distinction between capital and private property; viewing the former as an instrument of social and political power, while understanding the need of the latter.  Not only that, but Locke believed that property could be made "common by compact," or that the people could decide to share the wealth of a given piece of property (2nd Treatise, ch. V, § 35).  Such arrangements may be necessary when there isn't "enough and as good" for all to use.

The question is not how old the question is of "few" versus "many" but where Obama git it from I maintain that his rhetoric over the years betrays Marxism.

I stil disagree that they are more simlolar than different -- and drawing a distinction between private property and capital makes the notion of private property meaningless.

That also has nothing to do with those few "public goods" that Locke and others discussed.  Marx considered ALL to be a "public good" which is the real difference here.

I must say, however it is most interesting, that Beatnik is doing what Joe Biden could NOT do, and what Barack Obama has not been able to do, actually engage in reasonable discussion about this important issue.

This is much better than appeal to ridicule and then declaring them "dead to me!"

Well done Beatnik, even if it points out the weakness of darth Plagiarus and His Master, the Anointed One.

Here you go Fishermage, an article from The Hollywood Reporter about the bashing of MSNBC.  This is to support you viewpoints of journalism and the demonizing.

Both sides of aisle rip MSNBC

In a room full of television industry executives, no one seemed inclined to defend MSNBC on Monday for what some were calling its lopsidedly liberal coverage of the presidential election.

The cable news channel is "completely out of control," said writer-producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat.

She added that she would prefer a lunch date with right-leaning Fox News star Sean Hannity over left-leaning MSNBC star Keith Olbermann.

Olbermann was criticized by many who attended Monday's luncheon sponsored by the Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors at the Beverly Hills Hotel. The event was dubbed "Hollywood, America and Election '08."

Bloodworth-Thomason and others seemed especially critical of the way MSNBC -- and other media -- has attacked Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin while demeaning her supporters.

"We should stop the demonizing," she said, adding that Democrats have been worse than Republicans as far as personal attacks on candidates are concerned. "It diminishes us," she said of her fellow Democrats.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i28df3fc9f6707d1478700b7bc78273ae

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

Well, its nice too see biden in actual interviews... Unlike sarah palin.

 

That chick called obama a marxist, im surprised  Biden didnt go off on her. I dont care much for all that punishing station bullshit, the news is 90% bullshit these days anyway, liberal media, right wing media, what  happened too the media being about the peoeple and not the parties.

 

Actually, Sarah Palin has been more accessible and has done more interviews than Biden.

www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/20/politics/fromtheroad/entry4531447.shtml

I was going to say the same thing but you beat me to it.  Oh well, doesn't hurt to reinforce it.  Of the four candidates, Sarah Palin has been the most accessible to the press.  Guess she's really scared of them, huh?  For the next week, I wouldn't be surprised if the Obama campaign put Biden in a witness protection program with his mouth wired shut.

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by DeserttFoxx

Well, its nice too see biden in actual interviews... Unlike sarah palin.

 

That chick called obama a marxist, im surprised  Biden didnt go off on her. I dont care much for all that punishing station bullshit, the news is 90% bullshit these days anyway, liberal media, right wing media, what  happened too the media being about the peoeple and not the parties.

 

Actually, Sarah Palin has been more accessible and has done more interviews than Biden.

www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/20/politics/fromtheroad/entry4531447.shtml

 

I was going to say the same thing but you beat me to it.  Oh well, doesn't hurt to reinforce it.  Of the four candidates, Sarah Palin has been the most accessible to the press.  Guess she's really scared of them, huh?  For the next week, I wouldn't be surprised if the Obama campaign put Biden in a witness protection program with his mouth wired shut.

With Hasselbeck running things for the rest of the week Obama/Biden could take the next few days off and let her and Palin dissolve themselves into Bushisms. Hannity should be careful when he's carressing the 2 lone braincells when either one of them are babbling about evildoers, "real" Americans, polar bears, Russia, and terrerists.

Originally posted by Dracus

Here you go Fishermage, an article from The Hollywood Reporter about the bashing of MSNBC.  This is to support you viewpoints of journalism and the demonizing.

Both sides of aisle rip MSNBC

In a room full of television industry executives, no one seemed inclined to defend MSNBC on Monday for what some were calling its lopsidedly liberal coverage of the presidential election.

The cable news channel is "completely out of control," said writer-producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat.

She added that she would prefer a lunch date with right-leaning Fox News star Sean Hannity over left-leaning MSNBC star Keith Olbermann.

Olbermann was criticized by many who attended Monday's luncheon sponsored by the Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors at the Beverly Hills Hotel. The event was dubbed "Hollywood, America and Election '08."

Bloodworth-Thomason and others seemed especially critical of the way MSNBC -- and other media -- has attacked Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin while demeaning her supporters.

"We should stop the demonizing," she said, adding that Democrats have been worse than Republicans as far as personal attacks on candidates are concerned. "It diminishes us," she said of her fellow Democrats.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i28df3fc9f6707d1478700b7bc78273ae

This is nothing out of the ordinary. Ask anyone, regardless of affiliation, and they will tell you that MSNBC is just as much a liberal outlet as Fox News is a conservative outlet. Nobody disputes that. Likewise, all the democrats that I know refuse to watch MSNBC because it makes a mockery of "news". Just like Fox News, it's a source to have your ideologies stroked, if your vision is too fragile to be challenged.

The reason liberals are more critical of MSNBC is because we understand that it doesn't equip watchers with the information necessary to form complete opinions. We expect that from conservative sources, so it doesn't bother us nearly as much.

Originally posted by DailyBuzz

Originally posted by Dracus

Here you go Fishermage, an article from The Hollywood Reporter about the bashing of MSNBC.  This is to support you viewpoints of journalism and the demonizing.

Both sides of aisle rip MSNBC

In a room full of television industry executives, no one seemed inclined to defend MSNBC on Monday for what some were calling its lopsidedly liberal coverage of the presidential election.

The cable news channel is "completely out of control," said writer-producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, a self-proclaimed liberal Democrat.

She added that she would prefer a lunch date with right-leaning Fox News star Sean Hannity over left-leaning MSNBC star Keith Olbermann.

Olbermann was criticized by many who attended Monday's luncheon sponsored by the Caucus for Producers, Writers & Directors at the Beverly Hills Hotel. The event was dubbed "Hollywood, America and Election '08."

Bloodworth-Thomason and others seemed especially critical of the way MSNBC -- and other media -- has attacked Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin while demeaning her supporters.

"We should stop the demonizing," she said, adding that Democrats have been worse than Republicans as far as personal attacks on candidates are concerned. "It diminishes us," she said of her fellow Democrats.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i28df3fc9f6707d1478700b7bc78273ae

This is nothing out of the ordinary. Ask anyone, regardless of affiliation, and they will tell you that MSNBC is just as much a liberal outlet as Fox News is a conservative outlet. Nobody disputes that. Likewise, all the democrats that I know refuse to watch MSNBC because it makes a mockery of "news". Just like Fox News, it's a source to have your ideologies stroked, if your vision is too fragile to be challenged.

The reason liberals are more critical of MSNBC is because we understand that it doesn't equip watchers with the information necessary to form complete opinions. We expect that from conservative sources, so it doesn't bother us nearly as much.

Actually, Fox news, at least if one looks at it's viewership, seems to be the least biased. I doubt a News Channel could gain 33% Democrat, 33% Republican, and 33% Independent viewership if it were as biased as MSNBC is.

Sorry the facts disagree with your take on things.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Actually, Fox news, at least if one looks at it's viewership, seems to be the least biased. I doubt a News Channel could gain 33% Democrat, 33% Republican, and 33% Independent viewership if it were as biased as MSNBC is.

Sorry the facts disagree with your take on things.

Actually, (if the numbers you posted are indeed facts), they support my assertion. Democrats are more open minded and willing to view programs that challenge their core beliefs. How many republicans watch MSNBC? I'd bet not many.

Originally posted by Fishermage 

Actually, Fox news, at least if one looks at it's viewership, seems to be the least biased. I doubt a News Channel could gain 33% Democrat, 33% Republican, and 33% Independent viewership if it were as biased as MSNBC is.

Sorry the facts disagree with your take on things.

Riiight. That's why Fox was one of the few news organizations to run with the story about the psycho woman who cut a B into her face, before the full facts were known. Fox is just as biased as MSNBC and any other liberal media outlet.

Do you want to know why some of us Liberal watch Fox? Because we find it funny on just how biased it is. I watch Fox every now and then for a good laugh, the same way that you watch MSNBC to see how biased it is.

Originally posted by DailyBuzz

Originally posted by Fishermage

Actually, Fox news, at least if one looks at it's viewership, seems to be the least biased. I doubt a News Channel could gain 33% Democrat, 33% Republican, and 33% Independent viewership if it were as biased as MSNBC is.

Sorry the facts disagree with your take on things.

 

Actually, (if the numbers you posted are indeed facts), they support my assertion. Democrats are more open minded and willing to view programs that challenge their core beliefs. How many republicans watch MSNBC? I'd bet not many.

That would be interesting if true. However, it is not. Interesting spin doctoring, though.

Originally posted by Slythe

Originally posted by Fishermage 

Actually, Fox news, at least if one looks at it's viewership, seems to be the least biased. I doubt a News Channel could gain 33% Democrat, 33% Republican, and 33% Independent viewership if it were as biased as MSNBC is.

Sorry the facts disagree with your take on things.

Riiight. That's why Fox was one of the few news organizations to run with the story about the psycho woman who cut a B into her face, before the full facts were known. Fox is just as biased as MSNBC and any other liberal media outlet.

Do you want to know why some of us Liberal watch Fox? Because we find it funny on just how biased it is. I watch Fox every now and then for a good laugh, the same way that you watch MSNBC to see how biased it is.

Actually, everyone ran the story, everyone (including FOX) was skeptical about it, and everyone (including FOX) told everyone when it turned out to be false.

Again, as I said to Daily Buzz, nice way to spin the facts. False, but nice try.

Hillary Clinton's campaign has also said FOX was the least biased. Fox is by far the most least biased in terms of left and right. It IS however, populist.

Also, if "Democrats are more open-mined" and like to have ther views challenged, why is it that only ONE person responded to this thread reasonably was beatnik? Everyone other Obama supporter jumped into attack mode.

Why do Democrats want the fairness doctrine if thet don't want to shut down dissent? nah, there is no evidence that Democrats can handle being challenged. Zip. And, since there is no corroborative evidence of it, the spin fails.