|
ottopilot, "mad as hell" refers to an uncannily prescient, now 32 years old wakeup call that was the centerpiece of the 1976 film titled "Network". You've chosen to answer none of my OP oriented questions, but instead to personalize this via a "shoot the messenger" approach in your response. I'd be happy to give you a broad "solutions" from my POV, in a thread you might consider authoring on that topic. I ask you to look at Norway's approach as what I consider as a societal model...it's consideration that it's north sea oil wealth was a fleeting resource, it's approach to dealing with the predictable circumstances when the oil would be exhausted. Norway took the opposite spproach that the US and other oil rich countries have.
The OP asks you to consider and offers support for the idea that much of what is today considered in the main to be "moderate" is supported by the facts to instead be extreme. Do you agree or not....why? Your response to the OP is symptomatic...an example of why I am pessimistic about discussion being possible here because of the absurd notions of many of the forum participants. Too many who post extreme views think that they are moderates. I think that I well support the premise that the press has no liberal bias. I asked for opinions on examples in the OP....reviewing your own response, do you considerate it moderate, appropriate, on topic? I don't expect that I am a moderate politically, but I do attempt to position myself opposite folks who consider themselves to be just to the right of center. My political positions are not extreme because they are supported as reasonable. Can the same be said of the examples of the opinions expressed in the OP by Lieberman, Brian Williams, the Blue dog democrats at work to craft a Fisa "reform" bill, or the exaample of the new $178 billion war funding....or your reply to my ppsts on this thread? A discussion could advance with your response to the examples in the OP. What do you think I got wrong in the OP examples and why?
|