Media Control in America

[cantdog]

I don't see a conspiracy in the economic realities I outlined. Conspiracies may grow out of it, but the original event is just what is happening today. All the reactions to this reality, including any conspiracies that might be afloat, are just the machinations of us mere mortals, fumbling around trying to control our own destinies. Our human economy has a life of its own, like the economy of a swamp pool, and sometimes it chooses to live its life without our permission or guidance. That can result in war, pestilence, famine and disease. Sad but true; sad, but not a conspiracy in my mind, much less a conspiracy of Jews.

Gary, he just didn't understand a word of what you said. "New information," he called it. For a man who worships market forces, he actually knows nothing of economics and less of markets. It sounded ominous to him. He's simply ignorant and contumelious.

Now that he's said that, he will never look at your post again, of course. It had to do with the actual workings of economies. Experience tells him his beliefs can't stand exposure to that kind of information, and his blinders are back up. gauche has told him time and again about economic facts, just laying groundwork for an argument. The facts themselves cause amicus to respond with personalities and gratuitous insults and other stupidities, when he responds at all, which is very seldom.

The facts you cited had exactly that effect. He didn't acknowledge them but with an insult.

I doubt very strongly that he wrote the book. Any book. I don't believe he can construct a logical sequence of ideas on paper for even a paragraph, much less a book. He only began posting complete sentences a couple of months ago.

 

[amicus]

What we seem to have here is a failure to communicate...so it seems.

It is quite true, Cantdog, that when a poster states up front that there are no truths, no objective reality, that words have no absolute meaning, that I begin to doubt the possiblity of any communications.

Long ago on this forum I attempted to indicate that words do have absolute meanings, explicit definitions and that they reflected the logical workings of the human mind.

That very statement brought down the wrath of the relative humanists who declared that nothing is absolute, there are no truths that man can comprehend and that faith and reason are one and the same.

A small example of that kind of thinking is contained in this brief quote from Gary: "...Our human economy has a life of its own, like the economy of a swamp pool, and sometimes it chooses to live its life without our permission or guidance..."

Even those who advocate the 'invisible hand' that directs a free market place make more sense than that.

When you begin to inject social manipulation and re distribution of wealth into economics (which is a science by the way) then you corrupt the model and the outcome.

amicus...

 

[Gary Chambers]

What we seem to have here is a failure to communicate...so it seems.

It is quite true, Cantdog, that when a poster states up front that there are no truths, no objective reality, that words have no absolute meaning, that I begin to doubt the possiblity of any communications.

Long ago on this forum I attempted to indicate that words do have absolute meanings, explicit definitions and that they reflected the logical workings of the human mind.

That very statement brought down the wrath of the relative humanists who declared that nothing is absolute, there are no truths that man can comprehend and that faith and reason are one and the same.

A small example of that kind of thinking is contained in this brief quote from Gary: "...Our human economy has a life of its own, like the economy of a swamp pool, and sometimes it chooses to live its life without our permission or guidance..."

Even those who advocate the 'invisible hand' that directs a free market place make more sense than that.

When you begin to inject social manipulation and re distribution of wealth into economics (which is a science by the way) then you corrupt the model and the outcome.

amicus...

Amicus, I have elsewhere on this board begged you to take a good look at Adam Smith. I know you have that neocon affliction that forces people to dismiss their opponents as 'socialists', as though that in itself should be enough to win an argument, but I'm afraid I must burst your bubble by admitting that I consider Adam Smith one of the greatest thinkers of the past 300 years. Yes Amicus, I very much admire the man who is credited as the father of those market forces you are so devoted to. Without Smith there would be no capitalism as you know it. He gave the doctrine its name, and he showed us how it could work. In fact, to this day, Smith's capitalism is the only capitalism that has any hope of working. Except for Karl Marx, every so called economic scientist who has dared to tinker with Smith's work has failed miserably; failed so miserably that they have spawned a vast army of serious academics who deny that economics is a science at all. Neocons are just the latest bombasts silly enough to attempt the feat, and their predictable failure is obvious to everyone but themselves.

Ah, but you won't take a look at Smith will you, because to you terms like 'free market' are just political coat hooks? Though you plead your devotion to precise definitions, you prefer that terms like 'free market' remain available to you as linguistic wild cards you can toss into arguments like fairy dust, leaving everyone dazzled with your brilliance. Well, we aren't dazzled, Amicus, we're just numb. 'Free market' does have a precise meaning, Amicus, but it was not coined by anyone associated with the Project for a New American Century. It was Smith's invention and his alone, and his reputation is too firmly entrenched for you to steal it without anyone noticing.

"The Worldly Philosophers" by Robert L. Heilbroner
Published by Simon and Schuster, Copyright 1953
Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 53-10871

The Wonderful World of Adam Smith is chapter three, a mere 33 pages. You could read it in much less than an hour, and if you come out of it still believing in those neocon ideas, we might then have a discussion worthy of our time and effort. Until you can demonstrate some real knowledge of the subject you insist on lecturing everyone about, these exchanges can lead nowhere but into exercises of our ability to insult each other. I'm a playfull type, so I'm quite willing to keep the insult exchange up for a while, you inbred mental pauper of a scat fetishist, but if you think a sensible chat might have some value, please pop down to the public library. I'm still trying to figure out which body part I'm looking at in Sheread's latest avatar, so I'll probably still be here when you get back, waiting with abated breath to see how you can possibly reconcile the infantile Lego block constructions of Pres. Nepotist and his P.N.A.C. pals with the giant intellectual edifices of Mr. Smith.

 

[rgraham666]

One thing people keep forgetting is the book Adam Smith wrote before 'The Wealth of Nations' which was entitled 'The Theory of Moral Sentiments', a book on ethics.

Smith never intended capitalism to be a monster that devoured all in its path.

I remember how the first of the neo-marxists, Ronald Reagan used to speak of 'free markets, free nations and free men'. A writer I'm fond of points out that this is a rather odd order of priorities.

(I regard the neo-cons as Marxists as they agree with Marx on how a capitalist system works.)

 

[cantdog]

rg, I could hug you, dude!

(I regard the neo-cons as Marxists as they agree with Marx on how a capitalist system works.)

Sweet....

 

[cantdog]

On the other hand, how many neocons will notice or see if six or eight lit porndogs start doing just that?

Sad.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I remember how the first of the neo-marxists, Ronald Reagan used to speak of 'free markets, free nations and free men'. A writer I'm fond of points out that this is a rather odd order of priorities.

Not to defend the practice, but to clarify the theory - surely the points are in this order because he felt that they were cumulative goals? Creating one would create the next? I don't feel that it necessarily indicates priority.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

(I regard the neo-cons as Marxists as they agree with Marx on how a capitalist system works.)

Hmmm. They agree on the alienation of labor and the reduction of wage standards? I don't think I have heard them say as much.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

He's simply ignorant and contumelious.

cantdog, you've mastered the art of seductive linguistics. When you use words like "contumelious" articulately, you utterly captivate me.

Shanglan

 

[Jagged]

Okay here I go again.....but you liberals have it wrong.

Not many people watch fox news. Not sure all the reasons but well......the numbers are solid not impressive. Oh by the way you people have no idea what real facists are and what their capable of doing.

Conservative radio is there because it is successful. It sells product. I am sure many of you find those listeners to be morons that don't no all the "facts." There are more liberals or at least those who are willing to admitt to it in the media and that is a fact. Personally I don't care long as they are able to read the news objectively.

I am a conservative because I see conservatives as protectors of the Constitution. They don't go into people's homes and tell them what to do or how to live. For the most part I think being a conservative is very American in that it let's people do whatever they want within reason (long as it doesn't violate other people's rights.) I often find liberals are willing to violate anyones rights for their own good.......but that is another topic.

I am amazed how vicious you liberals have become as of late. Us conservatives live here in America too and we are having our say too........that is what real political correctness really is...all people having a say.

 

[thebullet]

Jagged said:
I am a conservative because I see conservatives as protectors of the Constitution.

Sir, I take you at your word. If you do indeed wish to protect the Consitution, then you should voice your opposition to the neo-Cons' attacks on that American institution.

You misconstrue me, Jagged, if you assume that because I oppose the neo-Con aggenda that I am opposed to Conservatives in general, or that I am a practicing liberal.

I do bemoan the loss of journalistic integrity that is evidenced by almost every American media outlet. As I mentioned in the start of this thread, the other day a neo-Con pundent said in a nationally televised interview that journalism has nothing to do with facts. Journalism is only opinion. He was proud that neo-Conservatives had grabbed control of such a large percentage of American media that many people only heard the 'journalism' of the far right. Facts, in his own words, don't matter in journalism; only convincing the people of the correctness of the opinions proferred by the 'journalists' mattered.

To me this view of 'journalism' is offensive and anti-American. A true Conservative would want truth and honesty in 'journalism', not lies and propoganda sold as facts.

A true Conservative should be appalled at the Federal deficit. A true Conservative should be fiscally responsible, balancing the budget whenever possible. Pay-as-you-go should be Conservative policy. This administration asks our grandchildren to pay for their adventures.

Barry Goldwater (author of The Conscience of a Conservative and the father of modern Conservatism) was one of my heros when I was a youngster. I saw an interview with him shortly before his death. He held the new Far Right agenda in contempt. He said that they did not represent the Conservative point of view that he had fostered and helped propogate. He said that he no longer felt welcome in his own party.

Jagged, if as you say, you are a true Conservative, I ask that you look into your heart and see if the present administration represents your beliefs and interests.

 

[cantdog]

Conservative radio is there because it is successful. It sells product.

..

There are more liberals or at least those who are willing to admitt to it in the media and that is a fact. Personally I don't care long as they are able to read the news objectively.

I am a conservative because I see conservatives as protectors of the Constitution. They don't go into people's homes and tell them what to do or how to live. For the most part I think being a conservative is very American in that it let's people do whatever they want within reason (long as it doesn't violate other people's rights.) I often find liberals are willing to violate anyones rights for their own good.......but that is another topic.

I am amazed how vicious you liberals have become as of late. Us conservatives live here in America too and we are having our say too........that is what real political correctness really is...all people having a say.

I don't see myself as being particularly vicious. Really. Are you drinking this evening?

But you have a point. There are indeed a few very disappointed motha fuckas who seem to have invested a lot in thje late election.

They've been emotional wrecks since.

But elections, you know! What a farce! Both parties in the fuckin pocket of the corps. Just tweedle dum and tweedle dee but they get so emotional!

A man ought to spend five or ten minutes on an election, as far as the candidates go. Referenda, anothe few minutes.

But really. They never change a thing.

 

[thebullet]

Cantdog said:
But really. They never change a thing.

Yo, Cantdog. In normal times I would agree with you. If you have read any of my magnum opus Death by Fucking or its sequel Tales of the eKids you'll know that I think that all polititians are whores, for the most part.

But the current administration is hell-bent on undoing everything accomplished in the last half-century. The EPA is a joke. Environmental laws are emasculated and unenforced. This time, Cantdog, it really did make a difference who you voted for. I didn't support Nadar because he was a marginalized candidate without a snowball's chance in hell of winning. I supported Kerry with my eyes wide open, knowing he is a whore, knowing he was a weak and ineffectual candidate, because at least we could have saved ourselves four more years of the destruction of modern American government.

I personally want there to be a Social Security system when it is time to retire. I now question whether there will be. Which means I will probably be working until I die.

That's what no one seems to get, Cantdog. The elections of 2000 & 2004 changed the country horribly. Normally u are right, Republican - Democrat, who gives a fuck. But with the neo-Cons in charge, all bets are off.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

all people having a say.

Yup.

Which is why I get a kick out of having to go to college or alternative papers and web blogs to get a far-left point of view while a far-right point of view gets a good 17 hours of time on cable TV.

But yes, all people should have a say no matter how much we disagree with them. Which is probably how the damn "Free Mumia" marchers who like to show up at every vaguely liberal rally have avoided getting strangled so far.

Of course, I'm leftie not lib, so that's probably why I don't fit in to the inaccurate and faceitous stereotype.

 

[Gary Chambers]

Smith never intended capitalism to be a monster that devoured all in its path.

Shhhh. If Amicus hears that he'll think Smith was a socialist.

Originally posted by Jagged
I see conservatives as protectors of the Constitution. They don't go into people's homes and tell them what to do or how to live.

Funny, I find that's exactly what they do. Perhaps we need to draw a destinction between the various types of conservatives. I think the conservatives you describe are Libertarians, or in generic terms, libertines. There's another type of conservative who just wants to maintain a status quo, in the belief that staying the course will bring results. I disagree with them, but admire their motives. Then there's the Henry Ford type. Ford used to visit his worker's homes to advise them on efficiency in the management of their lives. He didn't stop until his wife threatened to leave him over it.

 

[gauchecritic]

Just remembered something

Meant to mention this before viz; Bullet's propoganda through stories versus Heinlein fandom.

If ever there was an author who liked sticking his own brand of Anarchy into stories, in as loud a voice as possible then Heinlein is your man.

Makes me smile.

Now back to your regular schedule

 

[thebullet]

Meant to mention this before viz; Bullet's propoganda through stories versus Heinlein fandom.

If ever there was an author who liked sticking his own brand of Anarchy into stories, in as loud a voice as possible then Heinlein is your man.

Excuse me, Gauche. Have you actually read Death by Fucking or are you just assuming? DbF has very little politics in it at all, just one or two swats at the powers that be in the timeframe of the book - not the present.

As reactionary a madman as Amicus himself loved it.

But thank you for mentioning it anyway. They say that any publicity is good publicity.

 

[rgraham666]

Hmmm. They agree on the alienation of labor and the reduction of wage standards? I don't think I have heard them say as much.

Shanglan

I'll quote the writer who made me realise the neo-cons are simply Marxists in slightly different garb.

Marxism is primarily an analysis of how society works - or rather how it must work. This dialectic is based on the struggle of the classes and the battle of the unregulated market-place in which the strongest wins. It is a market-place which cannot be tempered, according to Marx. It must and will run free and so function as a battleground between those who have power and those that don't. The market-place will seek to maximize profits even if this is to the disadvantage of most. Profits and power are the truth of the economic struggle and economic determinism will decide the social structure.

………

The only disagreement between the Neo-conservatives and Marx is who wins the battle in the end. This is a small detail. Far more important is their agreement that society must function as a wide open struggle.

The Doubter's Companion John Ralston Saul

How I laughed when I first read this.

Partly because it clarified much of my thinking. And partly because I knew what a perfect observation it was to get up the nose of the neo-Marxists.

 

[gauchecritic]

Excuse me, Gauche. Have you actually read Death by Fucking or are you just assuming?

I was merely referring to what amico was accusing you of whilst at the same time saying nothing at all about Heinlein's proselytising because he embodied Amico's own thought.