- 783
- 10
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
http://www.pjtv.com/v/2343
No option to embed, you really only need to watch the first 3:10 of the clip.
No option to embed, you really only need to watch the first 3:10 of the clip.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
da703trailblaza
Cool dude - don't think this would've fit well in the other post from yesterday? I know that's not the m.o. of your people though.
Originally Posted by da703trailblaza
Cool dude - don't think this would've fit well in the other post from yesterday? I know that's not the m.o. of your people though.
I believe the thread was made yesterday...Originally Posted by GTEK
Originally Posted by da703trailblaza
Cool dude - don't think this would've fit well in the other post from yesterday? I know that's not the m.o. of your people though.
1. I don't gravedig unless its necessary.
Originally Posted by da703trailblaza
So y'all wanna talk about Fox News but not MSNBC?
Good post Rex, as always.Originally Posted by Rexanglorum
When MSNBC was the opposition network, tirelessly opposing Bush, I thought they were sometimes overzealous, melodramatic and often times sanctimonious but they served a crucial function in our Republic, they were the unceasing opposition to power. Because I am not a traditional or cultural conservative, I often times agreed with their Bush bashing.
Now, as a libertarian, I see MSNBC as dangerous. They are now mouth pieces of the left wing of the Democratic party, the water carriers of power, and they are supporting what is no less than a path to serfdom. I see them as a threat because they are not just going after hardline conservatives, they are going against all dissenters. They portray conservative Democrats, moderates and libertarians as not just ideological enemies but as enemies of the state. They are even more dangerous than Fow News, for two reasons.
One is that while Fox News at least feigns humility and a folksy populist image, MSNBC hosts act like they are elite experts and uniquely qualified scholars whose options are matters of fact and the result of scientific thinking. This false aura of science and intellect is bad because those who view and adopt their views will be even less likely to consider alternatives than someone who heard a polemic and knew it was polemic's words.
Second, MSNBC's parent company is a ward of the state, GE's future lies in bigger and more powerful government. Fox News is bad enough being driven my Rupert Murdoch's ideology but MSNBC's programming is driven by the interests of GE, which are directly opposed to the general welfare and prosperity of the ordinary Americans.
It is ironic because for many years it was people on the left who warned us about and complained a great deal about media outlets being owned by big companies, who would use the media outlet to influence policy in their favor. They called it the "corporate media" and they always presumed that it was a conservative force. So now, the worst of all cooporate media scenarios is coming to fruition in the form of MSNBC and the left is cheering on what they had for so long detested. The other great irony is that the long held mantra of the left, "question authority" has been thoroughly cast aside and all those who question authority are either violent potential assassins, racists or both.
From the September 3rd broadcast of Countdown with Keith OlbermannOriginally Posted by Rexanglorum
The other great irony is that the long held mantra of the left, "question authority" has been thoroughly cast aside and all those who question authority are either violent potential assassins, racists or both.
Olbermann: But what about the risk of passing some sort of interim measure here and we hear Congressman [Raul] Grijalva, who's the head of the Progressive Caucus having released a statement last night about grave concerns about these contacts supposedly from the administration to health care reform advocacy organizations they are going to cease supporting the public option. What good does it profit a man to win a bill and lose the base of his party?
Robinson: In the medium term and in the long run it doesn't strike me as a great idea. I mean look, you could say okay, this is the best bill we can get. Is the liberal Progressive Caucus going to thwart what is possible in search of the perfect? And so you could put them in that position and you could maybe wrestle them into going along with what they consider a bad bill, but there's a lot else on the table. He's, our involvement in Afghanistan is deepening, we're talking about Iraq, we're talking about Guantanamo. We're talking about a lot of issues on which the Progressive Caucus is going to have a lot to say and I don't think you want them to be in a foul mood.
Olbermann: No, no, no because he's compromised on everything so far and as self defeating as it might be, the Progressive Caucus and progressives would abandon him if necessary if this were to be the policy of this administration into 2012. If it's necessary to find somebody else to run against him, I think they'd do it no matter how destructive that might seem at face value.
Robinson: Well, I think that is possible. We are a more polarized nation right now and I think searching for a mythical center, a mythical compromise between doing something and doing nothing, ah... there's nothing in the middle there, you know. Either you're going to do something or you're not and I think you've got to choose.
Olbermann: The middle has been nothing all this time. This is just a different variant of it.
yup just ignore that....