Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Freedom of the Press in danger?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/10/2007 12:16:04 PM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

The Candian organisation is called Adbusters.

I’ve read some of their magazines. It is a high quality, well put together magazine. They are obviously well funded. Perhaps if they tried a little harder they could start their own network or cable station.

I think they’ll have a hard time attracting advertisers, though.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 161
RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/10/2007 12:19:48 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline 		No, you didn't explain the quote. You gave your opinion supported by nothing.

Either post a link to the full quote, or leave it at providing your unsubstantiated opinion in response to my facts.

In opposition to US economic policy?



_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 162
RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/10/2007 12:20:01 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		Who has ever said that people would get all information through a TV screen.  That has to be one the more ridiculous things I have ever heard.

The advert was declined on some stations because of a policy against advocay/issue ads, not the paticular advocay of the ad in question.

This thread is about proposed legislation in the USA which would require the Gov to step in.

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 163
RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/10/2007 12:24:06 PM   
Estring


Posts: 3314
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline 		The problem is, talk radio is not disguised as fair reporting. Talk radio is news commentary. They admit where their bias is coming from. News media is supposed to be balanced. It isn't. It is propoganda disguised as news. That is where the problem lies, in my opinion.

_____________________________

Boycott Whales!

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 164
RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/10/2007 12:44:11 PM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

I'm scratching my head and wondering why you've posted this in reply to my post. It bears almost no relation.

Then you need to stop being so narrow in you view. Expand your view and see the interconnectedness of everything.

quote:

I expected the wittering about ideology. I mean, same old etc.

That’s the problem! The Inquisition, the mass human sacrifices of the Maya, the Holocaust, the Gulag, the killing fields of Cambodia... same old, same old.

quote:

Presumably you missed the part of my post stating an advert was declined on the basis it was in contradiction to US economic policy. This pretty much supports my original point that people will not receive all the information through a TV screen. The government stepping in was never mentioned.

This thread is about government intervention in speech and the marketplace (the Fairness Doctrine) because some people are upset that other people are voicing their opinion without "balance (exactly what constitutes balance is never defined)." Your mention of Adbusters was merely another example of that. I presumed that because you seem to be likewise upset that your message (anti-consumerism) was not playing well in the marketplace (how could it be expected to?), that you came down on the side of the interventionists. If I misread you then you have my apologies. So... are you advocating government intervention to get your message out?

quote:

Spare me the ideology line, it's as boring as bat shit.

I am truly sorry you feel that way because that too is part of the problem.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 165
RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/10/2007 12:51:52 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

I presumed that because you seem to be likewise upset that your message (anti-consumerism) was not playing well in the marketplace (how could it be expected to?), that you came down on the side of the interventionists. If I misread you then you have my apologies. So... are you advocating government intervention to get your message out?



'While you've been busy touting others for their supposed ideological stance, it seems you've forgotten to keep an eye on yourself.

Why exactly would you presume I'm advocating government intervention? Because I've from the left, and in your mind that's what left-wingers do?


_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 166
RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/10/2007 1:02:13 PM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

'While you've been busy touting others for their supposed ideological stance, it seems you've forgotten to keep an eye on yourself.

I do keep an eye on myself. When I first joined and was considering what my signature line should be I seriously considered : "all the above opinions are subject to change without notice." But I am too much in love with the quote I used, especially the second line since it describes my outlook on life so well.

quote:

Why exactly would you presume I'm advocating government intervention?

Because you seem to have a bug up your butt about advertisers advertising. 

quote:

Because I've from the left, and in your mind that's what left-wingers do?

Government intervention is the basis of left wing ideology but at least they're more honest about it than the right wingers.

< Message edited by Marc2b -- 7/10/2007 1:51:15 PM >

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 167
RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/10/2007 1:37:31 PM   
dragone


Posts: 215
Joined: 5/29/2007
Status: offline 		Hello NorthernGent; and Marc2b...this 'arguement' of yours has left the heart, and gone straight downward to the groin. The Gent is absolutely correct, free market advertising is NOT free market adverising. The special interests of a consumation economy is not served to air anything contrary to the consumation ideology. In a free market ideology, the 'Adbusters', willing to pay for the spot, should have aired, it was not, going further, it was refused; so...given that alone, where did this so-called 'free Market' prevail?

The publishers of print, have editors, and in TV, Radio, etc. and why are they termed 'Editors'...their job is to do what...'EDIT content'. So, where then does this 'Free Market' Free News', free anything find it's legitmacy. The term, 'Free Market' is a misnomer; it decieves, is propagandaistic in concept.

Advertisers advertise to do what?...sell product. To air anything contary to selling product is not in the networks best interest to maintain an advertiser client; who PAYS, forks out the big Moola. So, what to be done...refuse any information that is contrary to their best interest. The best method to silence the opposition, is not to give the oppositional bias any venue. Simply do not acknowlege it's existence, do not oppose, just ignor as if it never existed, and it will go away, as it has no venue to voice itself. If you are the CEO, director heading the venue, then you control the media, and what is permitted is only voiced as per your decree.

What, Marc2b, is so difficult to understand?

Now, if you guys are going for the groin, then grab onto what I have just said. If you have the BUCKS, DOLLARS, LIRE, POUND STERLING, PESOS, ...you gotem' by the balls.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 168
RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/10/2007 6:29:04 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		Ng, but your facts are lies.  All TV networks did not refuse to run it.  It ran on Turner....

And on the stations it was refused, it was because they refuse ALL advocacy/issue ads.  Your partial quote was the spot being identified as an issue ad, which they refuse all of. 

(in reply to dragone)
Profile   Post #: 169
RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/10/2007 6:34:03 PM   
dragone


Posts: 215
Joined: 5/29/2007
Status: offline 		Yawn, Yawn, Yawn, ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz, Arf, Arf, now go away pooch.

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 170
RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/10/2007 7:07:50 PM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Hello NorthernGent; and Marc2b...this 'arguement' of yours has left the heart, and gone straight downward to the groin. The Gent is absolutely correct, free market advertising is NOT free market adverising. The special interests of a consumation economy is not served to air anything contrary to the consumation ideology. In a free market ideology, the 'Adbusters', willing to pay for the spot, should have aired, it was not, going further, it was refused; so...given that alone, where did this so-called 'free Market' prevail?

The publishers of print, have editors, and in TV, Radio, etc. and why are they termed 'Editors'...their job is to do what...'EDIT content'. So, where then does this 'Free Market' Free News', free anything find it's legitmacy. The term, 'Free Market' is a misnomer; it decieves, is propagandaistic in concept.

Advertisers advertise to do what?...sell product. To air anything contary to selling product is not in the networks best interest to maintain an advertiser client; who PAYS, forks out the big Moola. So, what to be done...refuse any information that is contrary to their best interest. The best method to silence the opposition, is not to give the oppositional bias any venue. Simply do not acknowlege it's existence, do not oppose, just ignor as if it never existed, and it will go away, as it has no venue to voice itself. If you are the CEO, director heading the venue, then you control the media, and what is permitted is only voiced as per your decree.

What, Marc2b, is so difficult to understand?

Now, if you guys are going for the groin, then grab onto what I have just said. If you have the BUCKS, DOLLARS, LIRE, POUND STERLING, PESOS, ...you gotem' by the balls.


Unless it is a life or death situation, I don’t go for the groin. Guys should know better than to do that to other guys – it is a major violation of MAN LAW (I get a kick out of those commercials).

Your definition of a free market is inaccurate in my opinion. You seem to think that is someone has enough money then the free market will accommodate their desires. No such guarantee exists. A big enough supply of money certainly ups your chances, but it is no assurance. The other guy will act in his own self interest. If that is to your benefit, as it often is in a free market, great but if it is not – oh well, tough shit.

You are acting like it is astonishing that advertisers would act in their own interests. Why is it so surprising that people who sell things would not be enthusiastic about an ad that says "don’t buy things." By denying the ad they were acting in their own self interest.

I’ve often said that the free market is the right to buy and sell but perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it is the right to try and buy and sell. The other guy is under no obligation to accommodate you. If they were, how could they possibly be considered free? If you want to buy my pick-up truck, I am under no obligation to sell it to you and I’ve no desire to sell it because I need it. I can tell you to take a hike if I want to. Even though you didn’t get the pick-up truck you wanted, that is still the free market in operation. Do you believe that I should be obligated to sell it to you? If not, then how can you support the notion that advertisers should be obligated to sell ad time to anyone?

If freedom is going to have any meaning, it must apply to everyone. You and NorthernGent may not like the fact that the advertisers didn’t accept the Adbusters ad, or their reason for it, but if you believe in freedom, you have to respect that. Tolerance lies at the heart of freedom. If you don’t respect the rights of others, you have no basis upon which to assert your own rights.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to dragone)
Profile   Post #: 171
RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/10/2007 9:59:42 PM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Yawn, Yawn, Yawn, ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz, Arf, Arf, now go away pooch.

I waited around for that?  What did you do anyway (if you don't mind me asking)?

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to dragone)
Profile   Post #: 172
RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/10/2007 10:37:31 PM   
dragone


Posts: 215
Joined: 5/29/2007
Status: offline 		Hi Marc, you really missed my point, you didn't even make the bale. Not only off target, but 'Maggie's Draws' totally. Here, one more time....The free market as you define it, exists, I've not said otherwise...however, the very term is misleading, false, inaccurate, deceptive in it's entireity. Yes, I have the right to either buy or not to buy, you have the right to sell or not to sell, if I have the money set for your 'pickup truck' and you do not wish to sell it to me, but choose to sell it to another...for whatever the reason...the free market exists in the classic sense. I am not debating that concept.

So, what am I saying then: the term is as I have stated before...It allows one to believe that all is fair...well, it is not, I can cite all sorts of incidents I have been personally involved in, but without a URL, it remains just hearsay. At any rate: the advertiser, who spends the most does recieve benifits the other, lesser guy would not. The big buck spender can, control content of broadcast, print, whatever the medium used. The point is, to sell, sell, sell. and to create the venue to sell product. That is it.

If the content off your advert is deemed unsuitable, for whatever reason, it is NOT run. If you are taking out an AD in certain trade pubs, is not in keeping with the theme of the publication, it is NOT run. THere is no citing 'Free Market' principals ..they, the publishers, through editors, choose yea or nay. However, buy 12 issues, Inside Front Cover, double truk, inside and outside back cover, full color, full page...I think certain allowances can be made, and they will help you ad to conform to the issue, prehaps even a article, a review. But, take out a one time 1/16 page, black & white...you are outed, flat out.

Now, your senario, is quite correct, but that is not what I'm saying. Let us take your senario: You advertise your truck, spend big bucks, on placing ADs, big Bucks, here I come, a little guy, with my truck, I advertise, and you and I want to sell our truck. But I'm offering my truck at a discounted price, are you going to allow that...I don't think so. You will try to shut me out, by placing more ads, contending my truck is junk, then you want even more support, and you are spending big bucks with this publication, they will not yank my ad, you menace to pull your ads, they lose revenue, which may be in the millions, do you actually think, the publisher is going to lose the millions, keeping my measly assed thousands citeing the principals of 'Free Market'.  No, they will bury my ads in the least most unattractive placement ever, while the big spender, will get an article, attesting to how much greater his truck is than mine, an editorial, a review, whereas I would not.

That is not a 'Free Market'; sure, I can yank my ads, go to another publication, if that is what you call, 'Free Market'...hell, who can argue that. I can choose to advertise my product via another venue other than print...if that's free enterprise and free marketing...you win the arguement, but there was no arguement...you argued against yourself, for that is not what the issue is. THe issue is, and always has been...the guy with the bucks, controls the market. He can eliminate any opposion by his mere size, his money translates to power. And that is power to control market.

I read,  CA passed a law, outlawing the use and sale of the old type light bulbs, and ruled only the use of the twistie light bulb. If I am wrong, please correct me.

Walmart is another classic case; even however they come under heavy critisim, they flourish, and freeze the smaller guy out, by their sheer buying power. THey can undersell at a loss, till the other guy has no sales, is forced to close down...hey, that is what you call the power of the Free Market, alive and well. WalMart did not control the market then, they did not dominate the market, by sheer power, and eliminate their competition...are you joking or what.

I had a run in with a major MC company, and they shut me down, refused to even sell me license to sell their product or anything related to them. So...free market,.... if I had the money to pay their license fee, they should have allowed it, but they did not, and refused me access to their market.  I'll write it again...REFUSED me access to their market.  And that is what you call...the free market working.

Sir, you are dellusional.

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 173
RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/10/2007 11:17:19 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline 		Edited to add:

You're missing the point being made, Marc, in a free market the ad would have been aired. The funding was in place. The press is "free" providing your view is in line with the prevailing culture of consumerism.

I'm not disputing the right to turn down an offer e.g. Adbusters. What's your line about not being a subject? Maybe not to a king and queen, but definitely to corporations. That's my point. If you like being owned by corporations to the extent that you only receive part of the story because they'll block the other part, then that's your call. Personally, I don't want to see them have such a stranglehold over knowledge and information.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Because you seem to have a bug up your butt about advertisers advertising. 



You're wrong there, Marc, it's a strong opinion supported by facts. Take it or leave it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Government intervention is the basis of left wing ideology but at least they're more honest about it than the right wingers.



Only in the minds of the right, Marc, not in the real world. 'Sounds like an ideological viewpoint to take to me. What next "the left can't stand on their own two feet, so need the government to save them"? I don't think you understand the left, maybe that's why you play your "ideology" card i.e. you don't have the depth of knowledge to drill beneath this lazy, meaningless form of discussion.

< Message edited by NorthernGent -- 7/10/2007 11:32:41 PM >

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 174
RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/11/2007 10:02:52 AM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

You're missing the point being made, Marc, in a free market the ad would have been aired.

No, you’re missing the point! How many times do I have to say it! There are no guarantees! The decision of the broadcasters not to run the ad – free from government interference in the matter – is the free market in action. The free market doesn’t exist to cater to your whims – it just is (or is not).

quote:

The funding was in place.

So? Having the money to buy something is no guarantee that it will be sold to you.

quote:

The press is "free" providing your view is in line with the prevailing culture of consumerism.

You are confusing freedom with rights. Freedom of the press means you can start your own newspaper if you want, but it doesn’t obligate anyone to read it. The freedom to speak is not the right to be heard.

quote:

I'm not disputing the right to turn down an offer e.g. Adbusters.

It sure as hell does seem that way.

quote:

What's your line about not being a subject?

Exactly what it means. I’ll make up my own mind about things, thank you very much. Whether it is about consumerism, politics, economics, etc. I do not follow the scripts that have been laid out for me that say if you believe A then you must also believe B. I refuse to cast one side of the political debate as sinners and the other side as saints. McDonalds can tell me that "I’m loving it," until they are blue in the face – I’m still not eating any of their crap. Mostly, however, it is notice to everyone on the boards never to presume anything about me or my views on things based on things I have previously posted – odds are you’ll get it wrong.

quote:

Maybe not to a king and queen, but definitely to corporations.

Nope.

quote:

That's my point. If you like being owned by corporations to the extent that you only receive part of the story because they'll block the other part, then that's your call.

If you don’t think you’re getting the whole story, look elsewhere – it’s out there. Being free takes effort on your part.

quote:

Personally, I don't want to see them have such a stranglehold over knowledge and information.

They don’t have a stranglehold. They just appear to because they are the biggest and the loudest.

quote:

You're wrong there, Marc, it's a strong opinion supported by facts. Take it or leave it.

What is strong opinion supported by facts? That corporations (just like individuals) act in their own self interest – or that you’re whining about it?
quote:

Only in the minds of the right, Marc, not in the real world.

Oh please! The whole of left wing ideology is about the government taking care of you. The government should provide health care for all. The government should provide old age benefits. The government should support you if you get laid off. Having trouble paying tuition? The government should pay it for you. Too many right wingers on talk radio? The government should step in and do something about that. Need I go on?

quote:

'Sounds like an ideological viewpoint to take to me.

An ideology refuses to allow any feedback from reality, any criticism of it. The number one rule of the ideology is – the ideology is never wrong. That is the very opposite of my outlook. Every position should be tested against reality.

quote:

What next "the left can't stand on their own two feet, so need the government to save them"?

Actually, it is the left that believes "the masses" can’t stand on their own to feet and so need the government to save them. Why else would they advocate one social program after another (other than stroking their own ego over what good people they are)?

quote:

I don't think you understand the left, maybe that's why you play your "ideology" card i.e. you don't have the depth of knowledge to drill beneath this lazy, meaningless form of discussion.

I understand the left all to well, having once been immersed in left wing politics and a true believer. Then I had my moment of clarity and saw the harm I was contributing to, the nonsensical, bullshit I was spewing. I saw that I wasn’t part of the solution, I was part of the problem. I saw that I was no different than a communist or a nazi or a religious fundamentalist (Christian or Muslim or whatever). I saw that the problem wasn’t that other people’s beliefs were wrong (while only mine was right) but that unerring belief in anything is wrong. I saw the difference between intent and consequence and the good intentions alone don’t mean shit (other than stoking one’s own ego over what a good person they are). I saw that people don’t cling to ideologies because they want to make the world a better place (despite manic acclamations of such) but because they want to engage in self flattery and experience the thrill of victory (and you can’t have victory unless you have someone to defeat) and because they are addicted to power (and you can’t have power unless you have someone to wield it over). Mostly, I saw that people cling to an ideology because it gives them an all purpose excuse to blame all of the world’s problems (real or perceived) and – more importantly – all of their personal problems (real or perceived) on someone else. It not your fault. It’s the fault of the (pick one): Corporations, Communists, Nazis, Muslims, Christians, Black People, Jews, Mexicans, Asians, Democrats, Republicans, Gays, White People, Heretics, Infidels, Irish, English, Palestinians... Need I go on (and you know that I could go on and on and on)?

< Message edited by Marc2b -- 7/11/2007 10:06:15 AM >

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 175
RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/11/2007 11:30:12 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

You're missing the point being made, Marc, in a free market the ad would have been aired.

No, you’re missing the point! How many times do I have to say it! There are no guarantees! The decision of the broadcasters not to run the ad – free from government interference in the matter – is the free market in action. The free market doesn’t exist to cater to your whims – it just is (or is not).



Relax, Marc, we can have a chat without the drama of a few exclamation marks too many.

A free market economy is an economy in which the allocation of resources is determined only by their supply and the demand for them. The supply existed, the demand exists among sections of the wider population.

So, it depends on how you see a television company. If a news corporation is a business with business goals (which I accept, by the way, as per earlier posts), then I take your point.

If, on the otherhand, the role of a television company is to educate, entertain and INFORM, then they are restricting the ability of the public to understand all of the information.

Regardless of the rights of a television company to buy an advert, however, they are propping up corporate power by refusing to air the alternative argument. It follows, thus, that much of what is beamed into your home (assuming you watch television) is driven by business aims and corporate interest (which was my original point).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

I'm not disputing the right to turn down an offer e.g. Adbusters.

It sure as hell does seem that way.



Perhaps you struggle with the English language, Marc?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

What's your line about not being a subject?

Exactly what it means. I’ll make up my own mind about things, thank you very much. Whether it is about consumerism, politics, economics, etc. I do not follow the scripts that have been laid out for me that say if you believe A then you must also believe B. I refuse to cast one side of the political debate as sinners and the other side as saints. McDonalds can tell me that "I’m loving it," until they are blue in the face – I’m still not eating any of their crap. Mostly, however, it is notice to everyone on the boards never to presume anything about me or my views on things based on things I have previously posted – odds are you’ll get it wrong.



You may turn down McDonalds, but if you live in a general culture of consumerism, then it dictates society, and to an extent it dictates you. You can't escape that. Unless you live in a vacuum, of course.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Personally, I don't want to see them have such a stranglehold over knowledge and information.

They don’t have a stranglehold. They just appear to because they are the biggest and the loudest.



Watch the tele, read a magazine and log onto yahoo, and consider that most people are herded towards consumerism through these media.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

You're wrong there, Marc, it's a strong opinion supported by facts. Take it or leave it.

What is strong opinion supported by facts? That corporations (just like individuals) act in their own self interest – or that you’re whining about it?



Trust me, Marc, if there was something I wanted to "whine" about, you wouldn't be someone I'd turn to with an issue. You can take it from me that this is no more than a conversation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

I don't think you understand the left, maybe that's why you play your "ideology" card i.e. you don't have the depth of knowledge to drill beneath this lazy, meaningless form of discussion.

I understand the left all to well, having once been immersed in left wing politics and a true believer. Then I had my moment of clarity and saw the harm I was contributing to, the nonsensical, bullshit I was spewing. I saw that I wasn’t part of the solution, I was part of the problem. I saw that I was no different than a communist or a nazi or a religious fundamentalist (Christian or Muslim or whatever). I saw that the problem wasn’t that other people’s beliefs were wrong (while only mine was right) but that unerring belief in anything is wrong. I saw the difference between intent and consequence and the good intentions alone don’t mean shit (other than stoking one’s own ego over what a good person they are). I saw that people don’t cling to ideologies because they want to make the world a better place (despite manic acclamations of such) but because they want to engage in self flattery and experience the thrill of victory (and you can’t have victory unless you have someone to defeat) and because they are addicted to power (and you can’t have power unless you have someone to wield it over). Mostly, I saw that people cling to an ideology because it gives them an all purpose excuse to blame all of the world’s problems (real or perceived) and – more importantly – all of their personal problems (real or perceived) on someone else. It not your fault. It’s the fault of the (pick one): Corporations, Communists, Nazis, Muslims, Christians, Black People, Jews, Mexicans, Asians, Democrats, Republicans, Gays, White People, Heretics, Infidels, Irish, English, Palestinians... Need I go on (and you know that I could go on and on and on)?


That is an indictment of yourself when you considered yourself to be left-wing. It's not a commentary on the left. "I" etc.

< Message edited by NorthernGent -- 7/11/2007 11:32:40 AM >

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 176
RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/11/2007 11:35:45 AM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
quote:

There are no guarantees! The decision of the broadcasters not to run the ad – free from government interference in the matter – is the free market in action. The free market doesn’t exist to cater to your whims – it just is (or is not).


I am always bemused by those who insist that 'freedom' means that the government should make others act against their own self preservation.

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 177
RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/11/2007 12:12:37 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline 		Artificial Legal Entities get to do as they are told, or they can dissolve the Artificial Legal Entity, and return the assets to the PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS.



_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 178
RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/11/2007 12:31:00 PM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline 		'Artificial Legal Entities'...

Is that your code for people from other classes that you look down on?
So far that would seem to include the merchant class, the working class, and any minorities that don't follow your dicta. 

How many people are in the elite class you see yourself in?

(in reply to farglebargle)
Profile   Post #: 179
RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? - 7/11/2007 12:53:31 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline 		Oh, no. MERCHANTS are fine, and if they, as PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS care to conduct Commerce, than that is of course, their right, as they have an absolute right to do with their property as they see fit.

ONCE you beg The People for Special Privileges, and ask to be Incorporated as an Artificial Legal Entity, *that* ALE has no "RIGHTS", like you and I have, but instead is The People's Slave.

No one is holding a gun to ANYONE to make them Incorporate, they CHOOSE to.

If they are negligent in assessing the costs and benefits of incorporation, that is of no concern to me.



< Message edited by farglebargle -- 7/11/2007 12:54:37 PM >

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Freedom of the Press in danger? Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125