3
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

 
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Aug, 2006 11:21 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I don't think you need to worry too much about Murdoch. His enterprises cover the entire political spectrum and he definitely spreads it around all over the map.

Consider this
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml

Ownership of the media is also less problematic since the power now rests with those of us on the internet. The media can't get away with distortions and misrepresentations like they used to. There are too many sharp eyed bloggers out there to catch them and call them on it.



Foxfyre, come on! Murdoch controls what a vast majority of people read and hear! He thinks Bush is great - do you honestly believe his reporting would be unbiased? Do you realize how many people on A2K alone rely on mainstream media for their sole news source? Look how many Americans were/are duped into STILL thinking 9/11 was caused by Iraq! That's because TV/radio/newspapers/magazines are all owned by just a handful of folks, and they have their own political spin.

It's to protect the 10% who own 90% of the wealth in America.

The FCC narrowed down the number of licenses that are given to radio stations/TV. I'll look up when that happened, I think about 10 yrs ago. Why do you think that happened?

The internet can be mindboggling for many people, especially the older population. These folks are stuck with listening to or reading Fox, CNN, ABC, NBC, Time Magazine, Newsweek, etc., all composed by the same people & broadcast in many languages throughout the world. Even NPR takes corporate donations. There is a lot of disinformation out there and weeding through it is time consuming. A blogger is just a person like you or me. Why would you especially listen to them? Their source isn't as reliable as wikipedia.

Bottom line is - there are no truly independent major newspapers in the US anymore. Where is free speech? Where is freedom of the press?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Aug, 2006 12:03 am
Bottom line, poll after poll has shown that most people are not getting their primary source of news from newspapers these days and almost all the major newspapers have lost significant circulation and are struggling financially these days. All these mergers and conglomerates have so watered down competition and an instinct for excellence, the power of the media, as I said, has moved to the internet.

The liberal media still overwhelmingly outnumbers conservative sources, Murdoch notwithstanding, but both sides are out there for anybody who wishes to inform themselves. (Most people really don't).

Not to worry. These things always have a way of balancing out.

I am far more concerned about the lock the wacko leftwing has on academia these days and the imbalance this is creating in first time voters. But nevertheless, once they're out in the world, most seem to be gaining a better grasp of reality so there too it will probably all balance out.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Aug, 2006 12:28 am
Quote:
I am far more concerned about the lock the wacko leftwing has on academia these days and the imbalance this is creating in first time voters.


hahah, that again? How many times must you be proven wrong on the same issue?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Aug, 2006 06:15 am
cyclo

"Proved wrong" simply is not even a possibility for foxfyre on a central matter of her worldview. What she apparently considers her "strength" is an adamant refusal to validate or accept anything which might put those central ideas in any jeopardy. They are simply true and the maintenance of their truth-status is apparently rather important.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Aug, 2006 08:57 am
blatham wrote:
cyclo

"Proved wrong" simply is not even a possibility for foxfyre on a central matter of her worldview. What she apparently considers her "strength" is an adamant refusal to validate or accept anything which might put those central ideas in any jeopardy. They are simply true and the maintenance of their truth-status is apparently rather important.


Exactly. It doesn't matter that the extreme left has permeated our schools of higher education or that they indoctrinate our young, idiot, college students with their proganada. It only matters that a couple of people on A2K discussed it and now the case is closed. That enables one uppity liberal to coo about what another uppity liberal said while slapping each other on the back and giving high fives.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Aug, 2006 11:43 am
McGentrix wrote:
blatham wrote:
cyclo

"Proved wrong" simply is not even a possibility for foxfyre on a central matter of her worldview. What she apparently considers her "strength" is an adamant refusal to validate or accept anything which might put those central ideas in any jeopardy. They are simply true and the maintenance of their truth-status is apparently rather important.


Exactly. It doesn't matter that the extreme left has permeated our schools of higher education or that they indoctrinate our young, idiot, college students with their proganada. It only matters that a couple of people on A2K discussed it and now the case is closed. That enables one uppity liberal to coo about what another uppity liberal said while slapping each other on the back and giving high fives.


You might be better advised to continue speaking about this subject to other people who've not spent a year or even a day at a university. The certainty you have as regards those claims remains the priviledge of people who do not know what they/you are talking about.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Aug, 2006 01:08 pm
Blatham naturally points out the greatest strength of the arguments against Fox: a severe lack of experience with the subject in question, combined with a lack of objective proof.

A wonderful, real-life example of how wrong you folks are; I recently started working at the Boalt Hall school of Law at UC Berkeley. Most of our professors are conservative; hell, I stood in an elevator on Thursday with John Yoo. It took a lot of effort not to deck the guy.

Come to think of it, we had many conservative Physics professors at my old job at the University of Texas. This whole idea that liberals have infiltrated the University system to the exclusion of conservatives is ridiculous in the extreme, and there has never been a piece of evidence presented which supports the conclusions that you espouse, except for some rather spotty Horowitz articles which fail to cite accurate sources...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Aug, 2006 02:23 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Bottom line, poll after poll has shown that most people are not getting their primary source of news from newspapers these days and almost all the major newspapers have lost significant circulation and are struggling financially these days. All these mergers and conglomerates have so watered down competition and an instinct for excellence, the power of the media, as I said, has moved to the internet.

The liberal media still overwhelmingly outnumbers conservative sources, Murdoch notwithstanding, but both sides are out there for anybody who wishes to inform themselves. (Most people really don't).

Not to worry. These things always have a way of balancing out.

I am far more concerned about the lock the wacko leftwing has on academia these days and the imbalance this is creating in first time voters. But nevertheless, once they're out in the world, most seem to be gaining a better grasp of reality so there too it will probably all balance out.



Which poll? Could you quote your source please?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Aug, 2006 02:39 pm
pachelbel wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Bottom line, poll after poll has shown that most people are not getting their primary source of news from newspapers these days and almost all the major newspapers have lost significant circulation and are struggling financially these days. All these mergers and conglomerates have so watered down competition and an instinct for excellence, the power of the media, as I said, has moved to the internet.

The liberal media still overwhelmingly outnumbers conservative sources, Murdoch notwithstanding, but both sides are out there for anybody who wishes to inform themselves. (Most people really don't).

Not to worry. These things always have a way of balancing out.

I am far more concerned about the lock the wacko leftwing has on academia these days and the imbalance this is creating in first time voters. But nevertheless, once they're out in the world, most seem to be gaining a better grasp of reality so there too it will probably all balance out.



Which poll? Could you quote your source please?


After reviewing my favorite haunts for information on these subjects, I need to amend one statement. I based my comment on early results of Rasmussen and Zogby polls and an AOL straw poll recently all indicating people are going mostly to the internet for their news these days, but I don't know what any of the final results were on those.

Based on the final results of polls I did pull up, it appears that most people don't go to the internet for news just yet. So I'll retract that earlier statement about that. Everything else seems to be pretty well verified though.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/PollVault/story?id=805522&page=2

http://poll.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=18766

http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbcreut.html

http://www.pollingreport.com/media.htm
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Aug, 2006 03:51 pm
More of the aftermath. This is the kind of thing that these delusionist supporters strive to support.

Quote:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/08/27/fmr-fema-chief-departme_n_28113.html

...Stephanopoulos: You mentioned the bureaucratic black hole that is DHS. Given what you think about DHS right now, do you think New Orleans, do you think the Gulf Coast, could handle Ernesto if indeed it does land?

Brown: Well, I hope so. I heard an incredible comment from Secretary Chertoff last night that said 'it takes years to do planning for a catastrophic event.' That is a fascinating comment, because in 2003 that's when I first approached Secretary Ridge and said 'we need to start doing catastrophic disaster planning...


...Stephanopoulos: But then you ignored the plan when it came out, that's what all the reports say.

Brown: No, we had no plan...


...Stephanopoulos: You've admitted that it was a mistake for you to play along with the White House message during Katrina, and in Playboy Magazine you called that 'a lie,' the White House Message. What was the lie?

Brown: The lie was that we were ready and that everything was working as a team. Behind the scenes it wasn't working at all. There were political considerations going in to all the discussions, there was the fact that New Orleans did not evacuate, and the mayor had no plan, the mayor didn't do what he was supposed to do. And so we were stepping in there and talking about 'we're working as a team,' everything's going the way it's supposed to do, those were the talking points.

Stephanopoulos: Why did the White House want you to lie?

Brown: Well because they want to just talk about how great thing are going. You always want to put the spin on that things are working the way they're supposed to do, and behind the scenes they're not. Again, my biggest mistake was just not leveling with the American public and saying, 'folks, this isn't working'...

To watch the full video, go to,

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/

0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Aug, 2006 05:29 pm
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Aug, 2006 06:16 pm
Another tico tangent. Trying to defend the indefensible with yet more lies.

Quote:


Friday, August 25, 2006

So wrong that it re-defines "wrongness"


Mark Steyn is a hero to neoconservatives. They consider him a true foreign policy genius and run around drooling with praise, like John Hinderaker in the presence of George W. Bush, every time he releases a new column about the Epic Global War of Civilizations We Must Wage.

...

While looking for something else, I came across this column written by Steyn on May 4, 2003, in which he laughs about the fact that the U.S. won the war in Iraq so quickly and easily and mocks those who were concerned that it would be a difficult challenge. The column was entitled "The war? That was all over two weeks ago," and here is part of what it said, conveying the prevailing "wisdom" among Bush supporters at the time. Just savor every paragraph of intense, complete wrongness:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/so-wrong-that-it-re-defines-wrongness.html



Glenn continues.

Quote:

Many Iraq war advocates were honest enough to admit that they were wrong, that Iraq was and is falling apart, but the most dishonest of them -- the Steyns, Krauthammers and Reynolds -- [ticos, foxys, okies, etc. ] prefer to embrace transparent falsehoods than change their thinking about anything or admit that they were wrong about anything.

0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Aug, 2006 10:24 pm
Refer to my post #2231381 regarding 'who owns the press?'

WESTINGHOUSE / CBS INC.
Westinghouse Electric Company, part of the Nuclear Utilities Business Group of British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL)
whos #1 on the Board of Directors? None other than:
Frank Carlucci (of the Carlyle Group) G. Bush, Sr. is a member of Carlyle Group.

Television Holdings:
* CBS: includes 14 stations and over 200 affiliates in the US.
* CBS Network News: 60 minutes, 48 hours, CBS Evening News with Dan Rather, CBS Morning News, Up to the Minute.
* Country Music Television, The Nashville Network, 2 regional sports networks.
* Group W Satellite Communications.
Other Holdings:
* Westinghouse Electric Company: provides services to the nuclear power industry.
* Westinghouse Government Environmental Services Company: disposes of nuclear and hazardous wastes. Also operates 4 government-owned nuclear power plants in the US.
* Energy Systems: provides nuclear power plant design and maintenance.
END QUOTE

I believe this is relevant information.

The fact that George Bush, Sr. is one of the members of the Carlyle Group is a conflict of interest, to say the least! For example: If the mayor of your town had a father who headed a construction company which benefitted directly from contracts provided by that city, the mayor would have to be removed for conflict of interest. Why is it any different for the Pres of the US?

Carlyle Group is a major arms supplier for Iraq. This info is verifiable.

I have some interesting info about Frank Carlucci and Bush, Sr. and their Group.

How on earth do you maintain that Americans are getting unbiased news? Do you think, being as Bush, Sr. owns/controls so much of the airwaves, that he'd allow anything like truth about: Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia, 9/11, etc., etc., to leak out?

Hardly. Too much money is at stake.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Aug, 2006 10:32 pm
NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN (Pachebel's comment: We know who owns them, don't we?)


Exposed: The Carlyle Group

Shocking documentary uncovers the subversion of Americas democracy.

I defy you to watch this 48 minute documentary and not be outraged about the depth of corruption and deceit within the highest ranks of our government.

Note: The first one minute forty seven seconds of this program is in broadcast in Dutch, The remainder is in English.

SOURCE FILE

Other articles on this topic

Translation of the first one minute forty seven seconds of this program.

"The war in Iraq does not seem to be over al all, but in the meantime the rebuilding has already started. This has unleashed fiercecompetition for contracts, which are mainly awarded to American (ed: U.S.) companies.

What is remarkable about these companies, is that they have people on their payroll from American politics and the military. Is this a conflict of interest, or is this the new global way of doing business?

[text in the screen at this time reads: 'the iron triangle']

One of the companies that operates in this manner is the Carlyle Group."

On their payroll are people like : George Bush (Sr.), James Baker III and old premier John Major.

The Carlyle Group is a private investment bank which doesn't come to the publics attention very often but it is one of the biggest American (ed: USA) investors of the defense industry, telecom, property and financial services.

What is the Carlyle Group? Who are the people behind the name? And how much power does Carlyle have?

This program was broadcast on VPRO Netherlands TV:
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Aug, 2006 10:56 pm
The Carlyle Group

* Ranked 11th largest U.S. Department of Defense contractor with $1.2 billion in contracts during 2000.1

* Described by Industry Standard as 'the world's largest private equity firm,' with over $12 billion under its management.2

* Partners in this mammoth venture include George Soros [the multi-billionaire financier of right-wing NGO's in Eastern Europe and elsewhere] and Fred Malek (George H.W. Bush's campaign manager who was forced to resign when it was revealed he was Nixon's "Jew counter.")2

* In 1990, Carlyle placed George W. Bush on the board of directors of one of its subsidiaries, Caterair, an airline catering company.3

* Carlyle employs [Reagan's] Secretary of State James Baker III [Bush's designated representative in the Florida election scandal] and former British Prime Minister John Major. The firm's advisory board lists such international figures as former President Fidel Ramos of the Philippines and the former prime minister of Thailand.3

* Frank Carlucci, [Reagan's] defense secretary and Carlyle's chairman, met with his former college classmate Donald Rumsfeld, Bush's defense secretary, in February 2001. They spoke about "military matters" although Carlyle has billions of dollars worth of military contracts being considered by the government.3

Footnotes:
1. Bill Murray, "Lockheed tops DOD biz list," Federal Computer Week, Jan. 25, 2001. <http>

2. Alice Cherbonnier, "Republican-controlled Carlyle Group poses serious Ethical Questions for Bush Presidents, but Baltimore Sun ignores it" Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel, Oct. 1, 2001. <http>

3. Shannon Jones, "The Carlyle Group: ex-government officials cash in," World Socialist Web Site, May 16, 2001.<http>

*****************************************************
It's self explanatory.

Bush Jr. starts war.
Bush Sr. reaps Dept. of Defense contracts to rebuild Iraq via American (of course) contractors.
How very, very convenient, but what a conflict of interest.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 01:21 am
Quote:
The FCC narrowed down the number of licenses that are given to radio stations/TV. I'll look up when that happened, I think about 10 yrs ago. Why do you think that happened?


What party controlled the WH and the FCC 10 years ago?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 02:51 am
JTT wrote:
Another tico tangent.

This is "The Bush supporters' aftermath thread". Lying or not, Tico and the National Review are Bush supporters and you aren't. That makes you, not Tico, the one on a tangent here.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 04:52 am
mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
The FCC narrowed down the number of licenses that are given to radio stations/TV. I'll look up when that happened, I think about 10 yrs ago. Why do you think that happened?


What party controlled the WH and the FCC 10 years ago?


Actually the major changes came in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the GOP was the majority party at that time. As I recall, however, a substantial majority of both parties voted yes and President Clinton signed it into law with no objections. So both parties have to take their lumps on this one and there were some bad components of that bill.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 05:23 am
Oh, and just thinking about some comments from the thread trolls on the issue of liberalism on U.S. universities--I'm trying hard to adhere to the thread starter's admonition to not feed the trolls--there is this:

College Faculties A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 29, 2005; Page C01

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

"What's most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field," said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. "There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It's a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you'd expect to be dominated by liberals."

Religious services take a back seat for many faculty members, with 51 percent saying they rarely or never attend church or synagogue and 31 percent calling themselves regular churchgoers. On the gender front, 72 percent of the full-time faculty are male and 28 percent female.

The findings, by Lichter and fellow political science professors Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, are based on a survey of 1,643 full-time faculty at 183 four-year schools. The researchers relied on 1999 data from the North American Academic Study Survey, the most recent comprehensive data available.

The study appears in the March issue of the Forum, an online political science journal. It was funded by the Randolph Foundation, a right-leaning group that has given grants to such conservative organizations as the Independent Women's Forum and Americans for Tax Reform.

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of "possible discrimination" against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, "the most likely conclusion" is that "being conservative counts against you," he said. "It doesn't surprise me, because I've observed it happening." The study, however, describes this finding as "preliminary."

When asked about the findings, Jonathan Knight, director of academic freedom and tenure for the American Association of University Professors, said, "The question is how this translates into what happens within the academic community on such issues as curriculum, admission of students, evaluation of students, evaluation of faculty for salary and promotion." Knight said he isn't aware of "any good evidence" that personal views are having an impact on campus policies.

"It's hard to see that these liberal views cut very deeply into the education of students. In fact, a number of studies show the core values that students bring into the university are not very much altered by being in college."

Rothman, Lichter and Nevitte find a leftward shift on campus over the past two decades. In the last major survey of college faculty, by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 1984, 39 percent identified themselves as liberal.

In contrast with the finding that nearly three-quarters of college faculty are liberal, a Harris Poll of the general public last year found that 33 percent describe themselves as conservative and 18 percent as liberal.

The liberal label that a majority of the faculty members attached to themselves is reflected on a variety of issues. The professors and instructors surveyed are, strongly or somewhat, in favor of abortion rights (84 percent); believe homosexuality is acceptable (67 percent); and want more environmental protection "even if it raises prices or costs jobs" (88 percent). What's more, the study found, 65 percent want the government to ensure full employment, a stance to the left of the Democratic Party.

Recent campus controversies have reinforced the left-wing faculty image. The University of Colorado is reviewing its tenure system after one professor, Ward Churchill, created an uproar by likening World Trade Center victims to Nazis. Harvard's faculty of arts and sciences voted no confidence in the university's president, Lawrence Summers, after he privately wondered whether women had the same natural ability as men in science and math.

The study did not attempt to examine whether the political views of faculty members affect the content of their courses.

The researchers say that liberals, men and non-regular churchgoers are more likely to be teaching at top schools, while conservatives, women and more religious faculty are more likely to be relegated to lower-tier colleges and universities.

Top-tier schools, roughly a third of the total, are defined as highly ranked liberal arts colleges and research universities that grant PhDs.

The most liberal faculties are those devoted to the humanities (81 percent) and social sciences (75 percent), according to the study. But liberals outnumbered conservatives even among engineering faculty (51 percent to 19 percent) and business faculty (49 percent to 39 percent).

The most left-leaning departments are English literature, philosophy, political science and religious studies, where at least 80 percent of the faculty say they are liberal and no more than 5 percent call themselves conservative, the study says.

"In general," says Lichter, who also heads the nonprofit Center for Media and Public Affairs, "even broad-minded people gravitate toward other people like themselves. That's why you need diversity, not just of race and gender but also, maybe especially, of ideas and perspective."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

Also
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10926690/

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/December2004/FoothillWiesnerArt121504.htm

http://www.iwf.org/issues/issues_detail.asp?ArticleID=558
__________________________________________________________
Most say there is no evidence that the overwhelming imbalance in diversity of thought is affecting the views of students, but that would be based on the views of the students wouldn't you think? And does a person who has been brainwashed know that he has been brainwashed? Unless universities are not convincing students of the validity of the content of any subjects, it is pretty hard to believe that faculty pushing ideological views is somehow not convincing students in those views too.

So, considering that college students have always been more liberal than the population as a whole--a situation that generally corrects itself as the person matures--it is not surprising that universities are turning out a lot of little Democrats.

The encouraging part, however, is that those students who are conservative are informed, savvy, energized, and do vote. So while the lack of diversity of thought on college campuses is unfortunate from an educational aspect and I am 100% convinced the students are being shortchanged by that, I don't think the GOP needs to worry too much about that politically. I do think society as a whole does suffer some negative consequences from a lot of the fuzzy headed liberalism, however.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Aug, 2006 09:31 am
The only important line from the article, really:

Quote:

The study did not attempt to examine whether the political views of faculty members affect the content of their courses.


Fox wrote:
Quote:
I do think society as a whole does suffer some negative consequences from a lot of the fuzzy headed liberalism, however.


Really? George Washington didn't seem to think so.

Quote:
As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.
George Washington


Liberalism means a lot more than you seem to think it does, Fox. Not that this is surprising in any way.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/19/2025 at 05:57:11