Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
. . . Words. . . .
Additionally, if they can label Obama with the blanket and largely inaccurate label of socialism, then I label the current mess capitalism.
|
The government was still pumping money into many of these large corporations, had they not, I believe the problem would have been curbed before it could get out of hand. Either way, the point is moot now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
That's not much of a defense. I'm very tired of people acting like all socialism is bad. If you truly believe that, then I trust you pay someone for the private roads that you had constructed so that you can drive to work. . .
Socialism of the commons is not a bad thing - by which I mean everyone needs to use roads and it would be pretty silly if everyone had to make their own roads to get them where they want to go. Socialising the vehicle transportation infrastructure makes perfect sense, and it would be idiotic to try to do it any other way, yet the "oh my god socialism is BAD!" crowd never seems to manage to think of that.
|
I never made a judgment call on socialism one way or the other. I simply said that Obama is a proponent of a handful of socialist policies and a good deal of his farther-left supporters are, in fact, dyed-in-the-wool socialists and communists. If you must know, I believe the government should only provide what it absolutely must (i.e. roads, mail, utilities, etc.) and that most things, including healthcare, should be left in the hands of private industry. My biggest problem is that the things that are left in the hands of private industry have large lobbies, so the laws are biased in favor of the corporation and not the consumer. The balance of power should be shifted more towards the middle. I'll save my views on the ethics of business for another time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
On this we agree, but then Clinton is really Neo-Con Lite. Signing NAFTA and GAT screwed us over as much as many of the things Reagan and the Bush's did. The very idea that it's a good idea to encourage companies to outsource jobs to other countries is a corporatist viewpoint that is, frankly, an affront to the people of this country, and I would argue that it is anti-American.
|
I'm glad we could find some common ground somewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Don't stop there. We're also responsible because no one wants to invest themselves in what's going on. There've been a lot of things that politicians have done over the decades which have been very obviously bad ideas. The no-evidence attack on Iraq, NAFTA, GAT, Star Wars, Iran Contra, the first attack on Iraq, Bosnia, Somalia, and of course Clinton's getting away with not kililng bin Laden for his first terrorist attack on our soil. This latter is a particularly bitter example because the media (of which, yes, I am a part, though due to my location and situation at the time I had no chance of doing anything about) had the choice between hammering Clinton for not getting bin Laden for his first attempt to destroy the WTC, and hammering clinton for getting a blowjob. They picked the Monica scandal not because it was what the people needed to know, but because sex sells and they wanted a titillating story. Pathetic.
|
We agree on most of this, too. I'm still on the fence with the current Iraq situation, but the things I have bolded, were good ideas. Saddam was a destabilizing force in the Middle East and needed to be ousted from Kuwait. The region is too valuable to be left to utter chaos, and whatever your personal feelings on wars over resources, facing an oil shortage or oil embargo would have been a bad deal. Also, Star Wars (Strategic Defense Initiative) is not bad. It puts the balance of warfare in our favor, and in the end will help keep nukes from raining down on us. Whatever can be done to keep the nuclear sword in its sheath is a good thing. It's an excellent deterrent because if we can render any strategic attack on our soil moot, then imagine how demoralizing that is to countries like, say China, DPRK, and Iran.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
They're worse. Fox is the only one full of slackjawed idiots who are proclaiming things like Obama isn't the legitimate president because the oath of office got flubbed by the Chief Justice.
|
I submit to you that the idiots spewing pure bunkum from their mouths on Fox News are no different than the millions of individuals who decried the Bush Administration, even after he was re-elected decisively in 2004, saying things like "He's not my President, I didn't vote for him." These kind of blind partisan politics do us no good. I hope that these kinds of these can be silenced on either side of the aisle. It would be nice to return to moderation and centrism in politics, and the ability to compromise for the greater good of the entire country. I'm hoping the Obama Administration can help heal this divide.
-----Added 25/1/2009 at 08 : 06 : 12-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
mostly what shakran said.
among the claims that float out from what's left of conservative-land, among the most worthless is that the entire american press is somehow part of a "liberal conspiracy" and that therefore their explicit mixing of rightwing talking points and infotainment more generally is hunky dory. none of that is true outside the blinkered little world of the right.
faux news is quite different from other networks. it's part of their business model to be an explicitly rightwing political network. remember roger ailes?
if capitalism were in fact rational, you'd expect to see fauz news scrambling to adjust that model--but no haps--they still present hannity et al as if they represented a rational viewpoint. so fine--it's just a question of time before they collapse then, murdoch money or not.
cnn and most of the other television "news" outlets support in a predictably servile manner whomever is in power. it's strange that the right has been persuaded that cnn is somehow anti-conservative when the fact is that the network is still chock-a-block with conservative relics--ever watch lou dobbs? the guy's a one-dimensional horse's ass, but he's still on in primetime. go figure.
|
Having grown up in and around the television and movie industry, the thing you must understand is that no matter whether they present the real, unadulterated truth or not, they still maintain a fair percentage of the market share and therefore generate money. It's about entertainment, not news, and that goes for CNN, MSNBC, et al as well.
Also, you seem to have forgotten the fact that there were a large number of "objective" journalists and TV show hosts fawning over Obama. That sure sounds like they kept a decent balance between their political views doesn't it? Many were far too eager to wear their own political viewpoints on their sleeves during the election.
Also, you cannot deny that there is a venomous anti-conservative majority in Hollywood and most of the entertainment industry. I have seen and experienced it with my own eyes. In the end, both sides have their own horse's asses and whatever they spew forth should be taken with a grain of salt.