Comments on: The Right That Secures All Others

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:57:54 +0000

Wow….

When the media ALL joined in to push for a war of choice against a country posing no threat to America……was that conservative? If so, explain.

When the "liberal" NY Times in the year 2004, a re-election year for Junior, held back a true story about Bush's illegal spying on America and then AFTER the election printed it….who did that benefit, conservatives or liberals?

When the GE defense contractor owned network, MSNBC fired Phil Donohue just before the Great and Glorious invasion of Iraq, was it because MSNBC was liberal? Once again, if yes, explain.

Literally now, I could go on forever.

All one has to do is to read Eric Boehlert's book "Lapdogs" or recent material from Eric Alterman to understand the media is not liberal in carrying out their work of "reporting".

Once more, Keith Olbermann is the only person regularly seen on the teevee who could be considered liberal. There are no other liberal hosts of teevee news shows….none.

Conservatives simply hate Media Matters.com because there in all it's glory is documented every word, every guest, every issue talked about by this fictitious liberal media.

It is true that "reporters" need and desire "access" to the powerful, but that in no way explains the media bashing of the Clintons for 8 straight years and the failure of the media to seriously question, and follow up on the questions, to Bush administration officials.

Still to this very day….only Olbermann has busted out of the timid camp of his media colleages to call Bush what he is….a liar. But Clinton's lie? We're still being bombarded by that one by the so-called liberal media.

Finally, which party is FOR deregulation of the media? The Bush FCC just approved another deregulation of media so that folks like the devil Murdoch can also deceive the public with a newspaper AND a teevee station in your town soon.

American media today is madeup of huge multi-billion dollar enterprises. The political party that, without question, is willing to help these monied groups with more tax breaks and deregulation is the Republican party.

That's the motivation for what we have witnessed over the past 20 plus years or so. Money drives everything in America. The media leans to the right because that's the political party that will hand them the pot of gold.

Ain't complicated.

By: Ghost of Vince Forrester

Ghost of Vince Forrester — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:10:48 +0000

The media's MO is to put a postivie spin on things from the Dims (Left) and a negative spin when reporting on the GOP. This is attested to in numnerous studies especially of past presidential campaigns, the latest being Bush vs. Kerry.

As for Clinton, yes it's true that the media did report on his scandals … but only reluctently and often only after being prodded by the alternative media. Perhaps you recall how the lberal media was trying to bury the Lewinsky story when Drudge made that particular cover up impossible.

The bottom line on Clinton is that the media never gave his outrageous, over-the-top scandals the coverage they deserved. [By the bye: Top Dim's know this. And they know Bill Clinton is a pig. They just don't want the lower level kool-aid drinkers to know it. It's better for them and the Party if all concerened accept the myth that the mainstream media is objective.]

But the media is liberal. As the King as noted, some 90% of journalists vote Democratic. Only a fool could assume this doesn't effect coverage.

Ah yes, now that I recall. Journalist Evan Thomas, editor of Newsweek let the cat out of the bag. This influencial lefty was quoted during the the 2004 election as saying that the liberal slant in the mainstream media was worth 15% to the Dims. He was probably right. And think of what that means. If the media was objectives, the Dims would be routed. So, I guess we need a slanted media to make the races competitive, right?

By: da truth

da truth — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 02:44:52 +0000

I apologize for my redundant posts; unlike Al Gore and the other lefties, this internet thing still escapes me. I promise to do better in the future.

GOFV, why is it delusional? Actually, I think the opposite is true: Clinton was way more attacked than supported by the media and President Bush has suffered the same problem. But I would still be interested in hearing you support your argument.

By: Ghost of Vince Forrester

Ghost of Vince Forrester — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:42:45 +0000

"If you objectively look at the news media inclinations during our lifetimes, you will find that when liberals are in power, the news media tend to be more liberal. When conservatives rule, they tend to be more conservative."

A truly delusional observation.

By: da truth

da truth — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:10:18 +0000

King, I don't read that other blog you mentioned. I like to read yours because you generally have views that oppose my own. It's no fun reading people that agree with you; it's way more fun to be educated by the other side. Having said that, I appreciate your attempts to curtail the name calling. I know it will be hard at times, but it is appreciated.

Your point on the media is well-taken, especially Hollywood, but I think you might exaggerate a bit with TV. Although FOX is the only clearly conservative network, many of the others have a lot more programming that leans to the right than you cite. I hear the rantings of Glenn Beck ringing in my ears as I type this……

Also, I would be interested to see how, as a Libertarian, you are ok with the excessive use of wiretapping and intrusion into our phone calls. If you have posted on this subject before and I missed it, I apologize. I am new to this blog thing.

By: da truth

da truth — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:04:57 +0000

King, thank you for your reply to my post. I don't read his blog, I would rather read insightful points from persons I generally disagree with. I don't know why, but unlike most people, I get bored reading people who agree with me. Where's the fun in that? Your posts, while sometimes offensive, are generally based on a clear point of view….one I generally don't agree with, but one I can clearly see.

I am surprised that, as a Libertarian, you are ok with how far the wiretapping and the cell phone thing has gone. I apologize if you have posted on that before and I have not seen it. If so, I would be glad to read it. I am somewhat new to your blog. I would say I agree with the Rev on the 'militia' thing.

Yes, Hollywood leans to the left, but I don't consider film media. I guess it is, but if you consider film art, all art is about the artist espousing their point of view based on their experience…or based on their want of a dollar. As for TV, I am not sure I agree with you, because I hear Glenn Beck's rantings ringing in my ears……..ouch. I think while Fox is the only clear cut conservative network, a larger portion of the programming on the others has a clear conservative bent. And, as you said, radio is a conservative stronghold, and I think largely responsible for the Republicans success. It took moveon to bring anywhere near that kind of power to the Dems, but it was way too late by then.

I might also argue your point on education, but I'm not sure I'm up to it on that one. I will say that education fails more because of how it is run than it does by who is doing the teaching. The best thing a teacher can have is an open mind, clearly more a trait of lefties than righties.

I know it will be difficult for you to quit calling lefties names, but I do appreciate your effort. If I ever find time for my own blog, at its core it will discuss how they really ain't that much different anymore…..are they?

By: larry d.

larry d. — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:50:02 +0000

Wow, Frank. I didn't know you had it in you!

You're especially correct about the media, whose worst fault is laziness rather than any kind of political agenda. Reporters don't compete for stories anymore, they read each other's stories and watch tv, then reword it all more often than not.

By: frank

frank — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:10:56 +0000

Mr. Roy,
Inasmuch as the Virginia Tech shooter was suicidal, I doubt he would have run. While you are wondering, wonder what it would be like to be a police officer arriving at the scene and trying to decide whose drawn weapon constituted a threat.
Mr. King,
I am a Second Amendment supporter but with reservations. There are legitimate reasons to own a weapon like hunting, sport shooting, and self defense. I also believe that laws against gun ownership are ineffective. That being said, I think it is important to understand what the authors of the Constitution had in mind. They believed that an armed citizenry was a bulwark against government tyranny; that if government went awry, the people should rebel and have the means to overthrow it. Of course, as events in Waco, and the crushing of stands made against the SLA, MOVE and other organizations has made clear, our government will brook no armed challenge. They also did not want the government to have a large standing army. This is the reason for the reference to militias.
As to the liberal media, I think that most people who complain of a liberal media are referring to the news media. It is true that Hollywood often give politicians negative portrayals, but I have never seen one identified as Republican. If you objectively look at the news media inclinations during our lifetimes, you will find that when liberals are in power, the news media tend to be more liberal. When conservatives rule, they tend to be more conservative. This is because the media is symbiotically deferential to those in power to preserve access. Without access, it is difficult to get information. So it is much easier to parrot the information the politicians impart than to challenge them through independent sources. During this administration, the questions that haven't been asked, the stories that haven't received adequate coverage, and the diversion of news into for profit entertainment have served us poorly. Why did no one ask how the defense systems of our capital were beaten on 9/11? How was it that no one was held accountable? How was it that even after Iraq was proven to be no imminent threat that 70% still believed that it was somehow to 9/11? Why is it that no one mentions that we already have an official definition of torture as indicated in the Geneva Conventions? One could go on and on, but as someone who has sought to enlist the news media in an effort against an entrenched political machine, I can assure you that few reporters are willing to risk their livelihoods even if presented with a smoking gun.
I wish you would do more research about libertarianism. Since libertarianism is concerned with the role government plays vis-a-vis its citizens, it is nonsensical to assert that terrorist can attack it. Libertarians believe in limiting government's role to defense of its citizenry. All other functions would be left ot the natural order of things. Liberalism taken to its extreme would create a government that smothers society. Conservatism taken to its extreme would lead to totalitarian government. Libertarianism taken to its extreme would lead to anarchy.
Libertarians have much to worry about with this government. In New Orleans, government confiscated the people's weapons immediately, hired a mercenary force to control the people (Blackwater), and subsequently took their property through condemnation.
Through laws passed and executive orders given the government is now free to violate your rights to keep and bear arms, your right of assembly, your right to privacy, your habeas corpus rights, your right to an attorney, your right to a speedy trial, your right to know the charges you are being held under, and many more. Although the presumptive target is terrorists, none of these laws or orders exempt citizens; citizens are being held. A libertarian, by definition, could not abide these usurptions of power by government.
I, too, want terrorists stopped. But I am not willing to lose our most precious liberties. It should be remembered that 9/11 did not occur due to lack of government power to prevent it. It occurred because the government failed to take action in face of intelligence warnings from within and other governments. Granting the government more intrusive power is like a zookeeper letting loose the lions in response to a tiger escaping.

By: larry d.

larry d. — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:56:03 +0000

There's that 'meme' word Reverend. I knew you could pull it off!

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:02:53 +0000

The "everybody needs to carry a gun to protect themselves" meme is kind of what Mike Huckabee spins out. What I don't get is why a specific group wants to take us back over a hundred years or more to the Wild West. I don't get that.

Society has decided to have law enforcement folks go after the bad guys. The criminals. Isn't that true?

Every time there is a maniac who goes on a shooting spree, we have to go through this gun thing all over again. There's no reason for this. In virtually every case, if not every case, these perpetrators are mentally ill. I know you would agree, mentally ill people should not have access to guns.

Having said all that….the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with crime. It just doesn't. It is dishonest to take the gun ownership discussion out of the 'militia' construct the amendment places it in.

The amendment clearly places gun ownership, the right to bear arms, in the setting of a free people having to provide State security through a well regulated militia.

And that's all the amendment says.

Finally, Democrats do not want to take the guns away from American citizens. Regulate maybe but not remove.

You want less violent crime? Legalize drugs. You want less violent crime? Produce more $40K a year jobs. Less violence and crime? Education.