1
   

Union members ae stupid!

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2007 03:37 pm
okie

Another democrat/liberal who thinks americans are stooopid...

Quote:
That's from Rush Limbaugh http://thinkprogress.org/
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Mar, 2007 03:49 pm
Okie ain't in no union, that's easy enough to tell.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 04:32 am
I've not been so available here of late due to time constraints. Most of my spare hours now are invested in agitating for unionization of the US Marine Corps, the Vatican and the porn industry.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 09:45 am
dys
I think you might like this guy...
Quote:
But one overarching influence affecting the group as a whole is that they have been enmeshed in the culture of national journalism for so long that they are incapable of viewing it critically. In every environment and every profession, broken and corrupt behavior becomes commonplace and then normalized. When that happens, even decent and well-intentioned people can engage in such behavior believing that it's constructive and proper. And because those rules of behavior are normalized, they actually come to believe that the more they adhere to them, the more appropriately they are acting.

As Atrios recently noted, Washington -- with some exceptions -- has been a town dominated by the Republican power structure for close to two decades now. For the last six years, Democrats have been almost completely irrelevant (as but one example, I paid almost no attention to, and had no opinions about, Nancy Pelosi until October of 2006, because prior to that, she was completely inconsequential).

Journalists like Harris who want to break stories and have meaningful sources -- for years -- have needed to cultivate relationships primarily with Republican sources, and that process of currying favor with the Republican power structure, listening to Republican sources, being dependent in their careers upon Republican favors and Republican access, unquestionably influences how they think and who they like and how they view and talk about the world, even among the most well-intentioned and ethical journalists. And the fact that, by their own admission, their world is shaped by a right-wing hack with the most unscrupulous partisan behavior only exacerbates those influences.

The effect of that process -- whereby currying favor largely with powerful figures on the Right is a prerequisite for career success -- is substantial even for the best journalists. And the cumulative effect on the craven careerists who compose the bulk of our media elite is virtually limitless.

Much of the deep-seated dysfunction of our national press is the result of the fact that many of our national journalistic elite simply do not believe in the real purpose of political journalism. But it is also true that even the more earnest and well-intentioned ones are enmeshed in a culture that produces dysfunctional, deeply biased and corrupt journalism, and it will just naturally be very difficult, perhaps close to impossible, for those who are such a vital part of that culture -- and whose careers depend upon thriving within it -- to view its operating principles as anything other than normal, proper and even honorable, even when they are anything but.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 10:32 am
blatham wrote:
dys
I think you might like this guy...
Quote:
But one overarching influence affecting the group as a whole is that they have been enmeshed in the culture of national journalism for so long that they are incapable of viewing it critically. In every environment and every profession, broken and corrupt behavior becomes commonplace and then normalized. When that happens, even decent and well-intentioned people can engage in such behavior believing that it's constructive and proper. And because those rules of behavior are normalized, they actually come to believe that the more they adhere to them, the more appropriately they are acting.

As Atrios recently noted, Washington -- with some exceptions -- has been a town dominated by the Republican power structure for close to two decades now. For the last six years, Democrats have been almost completely irrelevant (as but one example, I paid almost no attention to, and had no opinions about, Nancy Pelosi until October of 2006, because prior to that, she was completely inconsequential).

Journalists like Harris who want to break stories and have meaningful sources -- for years -- have needed to cultivate relationships primarily with Republican sources, and that process of currying favor with the Republican power structure, listening to Republican sources, being dependent in their careers upon Republican favors and Republican access, unquestionably influences how they think and who they like and how they view and talk about the world, even among the most well-intentioned and ethical journalists. And the fact that, by their own admission, their world is shaped by a right-wing hack with the most unscrupulous partisan behavior only exacerbates those influences.

The effect of that process -- whereby currying favor largely with powerful figures on the Right is a prerequisite for career success -- is substantial even for the best journalists. And the cumulative effect on the craven careerists who compose the bulk of our media elite is virtually limitless.

Much of the deep-seated dysfunction of our national press is the result of the fact that many of our national journalistic elite simply do not believe in the real purpose of political journalism. But it is also true that even the more earnest and well-intentioned ones are enmeshed in a culture that produces dysfunctional, deeply biased and corrupt journalism, and it will just naturally be very difficult, perhaps close to impossible, for those who are such a vital part of that culture -- and whose careers depend upon thriving within it -- to view its operating principles as anything other than normal, proper and even honorable, even when they are anything but.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
Possibly a variation of Stockholm syndrome?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Apr, 2007 01:17 am
blatham wrote:
I think to a great extent, that is right, dys. Even if folks can rise up from modest working class circumstances, eg clinton and obama or Hagel, once into the realities of modern politiking, the context becomes something very close to an elitist ruling class marked by significant wealth and class isolation.

The media, particularly the large salaried TV personality variety, depend for their priviledged livlihoods (multi-million dollar contracts are common) upon the continuation of things as they are.

As Matt Groenig puts it, "The people who are in power do not have your best interests at heart."


Why are you libs so obsessed with "class?" Is class envy that important to you guys to obsess over it constantly?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Apr, 2007 01:21 am
dyslexia wrote:
Okie ain't in no union, that's easy enough to tell.

You've got that right.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Apr, 2007 01:22 am
blatham wrote:
okie

Another democrat/liberal who thinks americans are stooopid...

Quote:
That's from Rush Limbaugh http://thinkprogress.org/


Stupid in some ways.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Apr, 2007 06:20 am
Let's take a look at the clear-sighted and non-stooopid...

Quote:
When leaders of this movement, such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, sanction, as they do, pre-emptive nuclear strikes against our enemies, and therefore the enemies of God, they fuel the passions of terrorists in love with the same apocalyptic nightmares. They march us to our own doom cheered by the delusion that once the dogs of war, even nuclear war, are unleashed, hundreds of millions will die, but because Christians have been blessed and chosen by God they alone will arise in triumph from the ash heap....


"Islam," Frazier says dramatically, "is a satanic religion."

He warns of Muslim "sleeper cells" in America waiting to carry out new terrorist attacks.

"You may have a Muslim doctor, and he may be a wonderful person," he says. "He may love his family, but you know what'll happen? One day, they will come to him -- I'm just using this as an illustration -- they will come to him and they'll say, 'We have a mission for you, and you will either do as you're told,' [or,] and they'll whip out the pictures, 'Here are your three children. We'll send their heads to you in a box.' Now, the difference is, is that if somebody told you that, you'd call the FBI or Homeland Security or somebody like that. They're not going to do that. Do you know why? Because they know the Muslim will do just what they say, and when it comes right down to where the rubber meets the road, boys and girls, they're going to save the lives of their own children before they'll save your own. And you most likely would probably do the same thing yourselves."

He pauses and slowly scans the crowd, which sits silently, expectantly awaiting his next sentence.

"I thank God for our men and women who are fighting over there because if they weren't fighting there, we'd be fighting right here in the streets of America. I'm convinced of that," he says, and the sanctuary erupts in loud applause.

America, the crowd is told, is being ruled by evil, clandestine organizations that hide behind the veneer of liberal, democratic groups. These clandestine forces seek to destroy Christians. They spread their demonic, secular humanist ideology through front groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, People for the American Way, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood, the Trilateral Commission and "the major TV networks, high-profile newspapers and newsmagazines," the U.S. State Department, major foundations (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford), the United Nations, "the left wing of the Democratic Party" and Harvard, Yale "and 2,000 other colleges and universities." All of these groups have joined forces, LaHaye has warned, to "turn America into an amoral, humanist country, ripe for merger into a one-world socialist state."
http://www.alternet.org/story/50366/
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Apr, 2007 09:33 pm
I am no fan of Falwell or Robertson, so you won't find me defending them, blatham.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2007 06:34 am
dyslexia wrote:
I'm thinking that neither the dems nor the repubs give a **** about the actual working class, the backbone of america because both have become so freakin' elitiest (ala Plato/Aristotle) that platitudes and buzz words dominate their itty-bitty minds.


The philiosopher-king concept that Plato was a fan of would not be best described as any politician. That comment is a disservice to Plato.

I agree with you that neither republicans or democrats care about any of us except for our vote, and then they only care every 2/4 years.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2007 07:17 am
Re: BBB
Bumble Bee Boogie wrote:
Definitions of Social Darwinism on the Web:

There's a reason there are so many definitions. Douglas Hofstadter coined the phrase "Social Darwinism" in his Ph.D thesis (published 1944). Throughout the book, he never bothered to define the term he had invented for the title of his thesis. This is no coincident. If he had nailed it down to any reasonably rigorous definition, Hofstadter would have noticed that no one definition fits all the "social darwinist" authors he discusses. For example, Herbert Spencer's politics overlaps barely all with Francis Galton's. As far as I can see, there are only two elements Hofstaedter's "social darwinists" have in common with each other, but not with other authors who wrote at the same time as they did ---
    1) They argued for ideas that New Dealers like the 1944 Douglas Hofstadter detested, and 2) Hofstaedter arbitrarily lumped them into one common category, and for this category he needed a catchier label than "authors whose politics are disagreeable to New Dealers."
Going by the descriptions in this thread, I would accuse Obama of intellectual fluffiness, because "Social Darwinism" doesn't mean anything in particular. But I wouldn't consider this a major deal.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 12:24:30