PDA

View Full Version : Politics: Saw on MSNBC last night



wedjim
06-26-2012, 07:48 PM
So i'm at the gym and rather then a music channel, or neutral news or sports channel, they have on MSNBC. I took a few moments to see what was up and what they had to say. After just a couple minutes it was clear that they were comparing "radicals" with the caring majority they agreed with. Only one thing struck me as odd...

The "radicals" were Americans in support of constitutional law and freedom, while their version of the "caring majority" (Think Radical Environmentalists, PETA, Green Peace, Center for American Progress, ACLU, Democratic Socialists of America, ACORN, Planned Parenthood, etc)were the ones who wanted to fundamentally transform the US into more of a European style nation.

Making me wonder a few things;

1)Am I to understand that NBC and it's sister broadcast companies think that people who believe in America and what is has accomplished in it's 235+ years are the real "radicals"?

2)With their ratings in the toilet. Since they mentioned how often Fox News lies several times in fact in just a few minutes. If it's about market shares and selling news/air time to advertisers wouldn't they do it more like the more successful news channels?
2b)If your lying and selling the most advertising space, wouldn't everyone start telling the same lies to get those shares? OR is going bankrupt while doing the "right(or left) thing the way they do things in the media suddenly? What is the purpose of their existence if not to sell air time advertising for share holders?

3)Will NBC ever have a show about how the constitution was written to protect us from people who the founders knew would someday make a power grab and try to dismantle our nation piece by piece someday?
It sure didn't seem like they know the intention, or reason for the American Constitutions existence in the first place?
3b)Considering how smart they seemed to think they are, you would think they would know that and might have a little show to inform their viewers?


Ohhhhhhh, I think I get it, i'm assuming they are wanting them informed rather then ignorant when they show up to vote?
My bad

mslman71
06-26-2012, 07:51 PM
It's easier to dismiss the opposition as crazy (terrorist extremist racist nutjobs etc) radicals, that is, to dehumanize them, than it is to actually address their opinions or concerns. If you can make the other side seem less than human then you don't have to go through the trouble of actually having a debate. Many a people and governments have used this tactic with great success.

Unfortunately, this is the norm for both sides.

wedjim
06-26-2012, 08:08 PM
It's easier to dismiss the opposition as crazy (terrorist extremist racist nutjobs etc) radicals, that is, to dehumanize them, than it is to actually address their opinions or concerns. If you can make the other side seem less than human then you don't have to go through the trouble of actually having a debate. Many a people and governments have used this tactic with great success.

Unfortunately, this is the norm for both sides.


That is exactly correct and it has been the case for generations, if not centuries even all thru human existence. Our nature is to be ruled over or to rule with nothing in between for most. The main thing I learned in my Constitutional courses is just that, it's meant to protect us from ourselves.

For example Saul Alinskys "rules for Radicals" goes into how it is done and it's purpose in great detail. Most have never heard of him, nor do they realize there is a method to EVERYTHING happening now and none is "by mistake" as it might seem at times to the uninformed people who have already decided which side is right or wrong.

People need to spend at least a few nights reading books like this one as well as De tocqueville' Common Sense and others like them from both sides.

What gets us into trouble is thinking things will never seriously change. What is the best way to guarantee radical change out of our control? A lack of information as well as going about our lives thinking we are smart since we are so grossly ignorant and just going about our lives.

Learning just a fraction about any subject opens a pandoras box, helping us all realize how little we know. People seem happy to watch the news, thinking it's all they need to know.
But, it's only what someone else wants us to know.

SP1966
06-26-2012, 08:21 PM
Humans are pack animals, we were never meant to live in large civilizations and will never, at least in our lifetimes adapt to it.

As for MSNBC, its a comedy channel.

MiamiSpartan
06-27-2012, 07:18 AM
I have no use for MSNBC OR Fox....
They are nothing but entertainment channels...

mslman71
06-27-2012, 07:21 AM
You want some (disturbing) entertainment? Go check out LZ's piece on Fast and Furious and executive privilege on CNN.

BillReilly
06-27-2012, 07:41 AM
It's easier to dismiss the opposition as crazy (terrorist extremist racist nutjobs etc) radicals, that is, to dehumanize them, than it is to actually address their opinions or concerns. If you can make the other side seem less than human then you don't have to go through the trouble of actually having a debate. Many a people and governments have used this tactic with great success.

Unfortunately, this is the norm for both sides.

The last sentence underscores your point. The dominant political faith in this country is left-liberalism. As will all movements (religions, causes, cults), they have a binary view of the world. There is "us" and "them." This is vital to the success of the movement and therefore a primary attribute. It's why the Left has a fascinations with colors (brown shirts, black shirts, reds, greens, etc.). Put another way, there can only be two sides when one group forces everyone to pick sides.

Belief is powerful stuff. Evangelicals will forgive a mass murderer if he finds Jesus. Liberals will embrace and fund a guy like David Brock if he turns on "them" and joins their cause. Black people celebrated George Wallace, once he threw off his segregationist views and embraced civil rights. Jihad Johnny will strap a bomb to his chest and walk into a Jewish pizzeria to make the invisible man in the sky happy.

Pretty much all of human history is the product of belief and fanaticism. A great little book to read is True Believer by Eric Hoffer.

BillReilly
06-27-2012, 07:42 AM
I have no use for MSNBC OR Fox....
They are nothing but entertainment channels...

So, you avoid entertainment? Oh wait, I get it. You're lumping the two together to pretend they are two sides of the same coin. Well aren't you the cheeky fellow!

MiamiSpartan
06-27-2012, 08:47 AM
So, you avoid entertainment? Oh wait, I get it. You're lumping the two together to pretend they are two sides of the same coin. Well aren't you the cheeky fellow!

I don't pay attention to the fringes.....

SP1966
06-27-2012, 09:27 AM
I don't pay attention to the fringes.....

So you pretent CNN in honest, middle ground news. LMAO...

mslman71
06-27-2012, 09:34 AM
So you pretent CNN in honest, middle ground news. LMAO...

I try to catch pieces on stories or subjects I find interesting from multiple sources and compare. It's been interesting to see Fox front and center the Fast and Furious inquiry, CNN all but bury it, and MSNBC stay relatively quiet but occasionally attribute the whole thing to a right wing conspiracy.

Iceman1800
06-27-2012, 09:39 AM
Agreed, both sides paint the other as radical. Now what would really be radical is if congress would work together for the best interests of the country instead of the radicals on both sides of the aisle.

x-trainer ben
06-27-2012, 09:49 AM
Agreed, both sides paint the other as radical. Now what would really be radical is if congress would work together for the best interests of the country instead of the radicals on both sides of the aisle.

They won't.... Rubio was on Charlie Rose last night and explained this pretty well and said that with the 2 year election cycle nothing will really get done. No one want to alienate the base for the next cycle. Oh well, stagnation continues.

SP1966
06-27-2012, 10:00 AM
They won't.... Rubio was on Charlie Rose last night and explained this pretty well and said that with the 2 year election cycle nothing will really get done. No one want to alienate the base for the next cycle. Oh well, stagnation continues.

Which is why we need term limits, to get those who are elected focused on doing the job, good for me or bad, and not worrying about the next election cycle. He couldn't have made clearer what his priority is, himself. He should be taken out back and shot for it IMO.

mslman71
06-27-2012, 10:05 AM
I kinda like it, if they are squabbling with each other they aren't passing legislation. I see them as being more or less the same animal, but their hatred for each other (at least in the public eye) keeps them busy fighting.

bigvin73
06-27-2012, 10:11 AM
Personally I think the system is broken maybe it's time to elect common sence blue collar types to government positions instead of lawyers and these so called ubber smart folks......I know it'll never happen but hey normal folks couldn't fook it up any more then it already is

SP1966
06-27-2012, 10:14 AM
I kinda like it, if they are squabbling with each other they aren't passing legislation. I see them as being more or less the same animal, but their hatred for each other (at least in the public eye) keeps them busy fighting.

You're wrong, we either move forward as a country, or fall behind, there is no treading water in life.

bodyhard
06-27-2012, 10:24 AM
You go to the gym and you watch f'cking TV?????????????????????


Wow just, f'cking wow....

mslman71
06-27-2012, 10:28 AM
You're wrong, we either move forward as a country, or fall behind, there is no treading water in life.

I was unaware that it required federal intervention (in the form of legislation) to move forward as a people.

SP1966
06-27-2012, 10:31 AM
I was unaware that it required federal intervention (in the form of legislation) to move forward as a people.

As our burden (both financial and regulatory) has become heavier it becomes more difficult as individual people to move forward. If you think you can continue a happy, successful life while the elected few tear down the country around you, you are being naive.

paolo59
06-27-2012, 10:32 AM
You go to the gym and you watch f'cking TV?????????????????????


Wow just, f'cking wow....

LOL I watch C-Span at home and cuss at the top of my lungs. At the gym, I workout without my glasses on. Can't see the televisions! Good thing. It would raise eyebrows, I imagine, if I began shouting obscenities in between sets watching MSNBC on their big screen! :)

SP1966
06-27-2012, 10:32 AM
You go to the gym and you watch f'cking TV?????????????????????


Wow just, f'cking wow....

No chance he may have been doing a little treadmill time? No, we must jump in and pass judgement on someone. :rolleyes:

Wow just, f'cking wow...

mslman71
06-27-2012, 10:33 AM
As our burden (both financial and regulatory) has become heavier it becomes more difficult as individual people to move forward. If you think you can continue a happy, successful life while the elected few tear down the country around you, you are being naive.

The burdens become heavier due to the perceived need to continuously act and the acting on that perception.

Doing something isn't inherently better than doing nothing. All things being equal, my view is that most of what they touch, no matter how well intentioned, seems to turn more to sh*t, each time.

If they want to "do" something, they can start undoing. I personally like the idea of expiration dates on legislation, and I think I saw another poster in here mention that as well.

SP1966
06-27-2012, 10:35 AM
If they want to "do" something, they can start undoing. I personally like the idea of expiration dates on legislation, and I think I saw another poster in here mention that as well.

Yep, and at least historically only one party has been about minimizing government.

mslman71
06-27-2012, 10:39 AM
Yep, and at least historically only one party has been about minimizing government.

You have to go back a ways in history.

powernpain
06-27-2012, 11:26 AM
Personally I think the system is broken maybe it's time to elect common sence blue collar types to government positions instead of lawyers and these so called ubber smart folks......I know it'll never happen but hey normal folks couldn't fook it up any more then it already is

The general perceptions and stances ( belief in thinking) of left vs. right is where the wrong starts. Right vs. Left is nothing more then a delusional smoke screen, as to keep, interested and flag waving citizens focused on party policies, agendas, relief, ideologies. In other word keep its busy little people busy, while the true underlying problems remain intact.

One may suggest white collar, the other blue collar. Its a system that does not impose discrimination on those that are pulled into its very nature. It doesn't matter. The institution in which we believe will honour the Constitution, our peoples rights, and un-waverly protect us and lead our nation has taken on its own life, where hidden agendas, self preservation, war for profit, and wealth take the fore front. This is the foundation that runs or hidden policies and currenly undeniably sets the course. To think Blue/White, Left/Right changes this will help you to continue to feed the fire. But do not be disappointed when things once again as history has precluded to do not turn out as you thought?

This institution one would call the government breathes death into all who come across its path. As mentioned, the four fathers were well aware of the severity of what the future held. They understood the complications and threats of how the power would change the people and its governments.

It starts at the fringes, accountability from within, it asks the questions that need answers. At this time its evident through certain media this is not and will not happen. But from the fringes you move toward the core, then and only then can changes start to happen.

Ask the question? Understand the question? Radical, extremest, left, right, Your country is not getting the answers. You want to debate in seriousness yet your very nature to ignore the truth is what bring in your nations vulnerably.

There is corruption wide spread on a multi facet of levels within the nation, but you insist to and debate left vs. right, you are confined to the idea that these leaders and groups will have the ideology and agendas to make change. This thought seems more delusional than the topic itself.

Its broke, as witnessed through the past Presidency, this institution will take the left, take the right, and clearly with time dilute all intentions.

You can debate ideology, liberalism, socialism, and so on, but until your country and its people ask the questions, demand the answers, the institution of government which breathes it own life, will continue on destroying the nation.

The corruption of our systems run to the deepest levels of humanity and moral responsibility. Systematically it needs to be stripped down, start to take on the accountability once again for the people and the nation.

Is it to be categorized as extremist, if it makes you squirm when the answers are required, if you are uncomfortable seeking the truth, if you deny someone the opportunity to be heard, if you are scared to discuss the possibilities, then maybe it is easier to label. If you choose to seek the truth, seek the answers, and are willing to ask the question that can change the direction, I often wonder why it is betrayed and act upon that these attempts are considered radical.

Only until a nation has rebuilt its institutions of government, that can, and will reflect upon its people, work again for the purpose of its nation without hindering transparency on all accounts the American Government can again serve its intended purpose of function, to elude from this realization is in its simplest form the continuation of blowing smoke up each others a**es. Its delusional at very least.

Left vs. Right, really? Fix the system and corruption, then you gentlemen can start to debate on how to run the country. :)

........................................if in doubt please refer to the Constitution of The United States, could be a good place to start?

by the way.......do you even lift? :)

mslman71
06-27-2012, 11:27 AM
by the way.......do you even lift? :)

While I'm watching TV.

BillReilly
06-27-2012, 11:37 AM
If they want to "do" something, they can start undoing. I personally like the idea of expiration dates on legislation, and I think I saw another poster in here mention that as well.

Every piece of legislation should sunset automatically. The same with regulations. The problems we have are due to complexity. Congress, even when they try to do the right thing, creates all sorts of new troubles. The size of the state makes it unpredictable. You don't solve problems of complexity by layering on more complexity.

I'm sure you have software systems in place that have been developed over many years. They get so complicated there's no point in continuing to modify them. The time required exceeds the return. In a human society, the rent seekers bury into the thicket of rules and regulations, siphoning off the returns before the tax payers see them. Cities and towns, for example, are putting up speed cameras (to collect money), but closing up their vehicle theft efforts because those new tax dollars disappear before they hit the police budget.

powernpain
06-27-2012, 11:37 AM
While I'm watching TV.

This is the generations of mulit-tasking...very well!

BillReilly
06-27-2012, 11:41 AM
Yep, and at least historically only one party has been about minimizing government.

The Whigs?

The last small government man was Coolidge. Even Reagan grew government in constant dollars. You are my age. In constant dollars, government is three times larger today than when we were born.

mslman71
06-27-2012, 11:48 AM
Every piece of legislation should sunset automatically. The same with regulations. The problems we have are due to complexity. Congress, even when they try to do the right thing, creates all sorts of new troubles. The size of the state makes it unpredictable. You don't solve problems of complexity by layering on more complexity.
....

I'd say we are in violent agreement.


This is the generations of mulit-tasking...very well!

As a complete aside, I've heard tons of comments about multi-tasking from people, women and younger generations in particular, and they seem to pride themselves in being able to perform a lot of tasks roughly in parallel, but what they leave out is that they rarely tend to do any of them well. The extent to which their performance in any one declines is proportional (plus overhead) to the number of tasks they are trying to juggle. I think there would be some value to us embracing more a more sequential lifestyle again.

eomrat
06-27-2012, 12:12 PM
You have to go back a ways in history.

There is still a party that desires to minimize gov't and may actually have the will to do so.

powernpain
06-27-2012, 12:17 PM
As a complete aside, I've heard tons of comments about multi-tasking from people, women and younger generations in particular, and they seem to pride themselves in being able to perform a lot of tasks roughly in parallel, but what they leave out is that they rarely tend to do any of them well. The extent to which their performance in any one declines is proportional (plus overhead) to the number of tasks they are trying to juggle. I think there would be some value to us embracing more a more sequential lifestyle again.


This in fact, is very true and agreed with.

SP1966
06-27-2012, 02:29 PM
The Whigs?

The last small government man was Coolidge. Even Reagan grew government in constant dollars. You are my age. In constant dollars, government is three times larger today than when we were born.

The fact that the legal population is also 50% greater offsets that to a small degree. But yes, I agree we haven't had a party that truly embraces small government in our time.

BillReilly
06-27-2012, 02:51 PM
The fact that the legal population is also 50% greater offsets that to a small degree. But yes, I agree we haven't had a party that truly embraces small government in our time.

It's worse than you think. Adjusted for inflation and population, the federal government is three times larger. (http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/does-government-have-revenue-or-spending-problem) The chart below does not include a lot of off-budget items. Of course, we exclude from debt the promises made through the entitlement system. Within ten years, those numbers explode to cover the boomers. Social Security and Medicare alone will top $4 trillion a year.

http://www.supportingevidence.com/sitebuilder/images/FedBudgetPerResidentFull-822x564.jpg

whatevergirl
06-28-2012, 01:14 PM
News programs seem to have slowly morphed into becoming more about pursuading people to think a certain way (whether it's democrat or repub), instead of just letting people have the facts, and come up with their own opinion.

God forbid we form our own opinions anymore in this country. :eek:

So, I don't watch the news too much, anymore.

BillReilly
06-28-2012, 02:00 PM
News programs seem to have slowly morphed into becoming more about pursuading people to think a certain way (whether it's democrat or repub), instead of just letting people have the facts, and come up with their own opinion.

God forbid we form our own opinions anymore in this country. :eek:

So, I don't watch the news too much, anymore.

News has always been about persuasion. This silly idea that the news is objective was a fad started in the sixties. It's death is simply acknowledging reality. Franklin, the father of American newspapers, created his papers explicitly for the purpose of persuasion. That and financing his printing businesses. There's a reason we still have newspapers with the name "Republican" and "Democrat" in them. There used to be papers with the word "Whig" in them, until that party collapsed.

Marius_Ursus
06-28-2012, 02:01 PM
The Roamin' Bear Dictionary defines politics as, "The practice of shouting down the other side."

whatevergirl
06-28-2012, 02:06 PM
News has always been about persuasion. This silly idea that the news is objective was a fad started in the sixties. It's death is simply acknowledging reality. Franklin, the father of American newspapers, created his papers explicitly for the purpose of persuasion. That and financing his printing businesses. There's a reason we still have newspapers with the name "Republican" and "Democrat" in them. There used to be papers with the word "Whig" in them, until that party collapsed.

This is interesting to me, actually. So...was it that people by and large thought it was objective (but it wasn't obviously), or did the 'popular opinion' or I should say, the proponents of it...convince people that it was objective? Like for example, Fox News would have its viewers 'convinced' that it's objectively reporting news, whilst another network, leaning more towards the democratic stance, would have you believe the same. :o
know what I mean?

paolo59
06-28-2012, 02:13 PM
The Roamin' Bear Dictionary defines politics as, "The practice of shouting down the other side."

Politics, as a practice, whatever its' professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.
Henry Adams

Successful democratic politicians are insecure and intimidated men. They advance politically only as they placate, appease, bribe, seduce, bamboozle, or otherwise manage to manipulate the demanding and threatening elements in their consituencies.
Walter Lippmann