To clarkatticus: Ill wager that liberals do not like two of Americas most influential conservative women; Phyllis Schlafly and Bay Buchanan. Phyllis Schlafly has always been the recipient of liberal venom. Message board liberals used to go nuts whenever I posted one of her pieces. I honestly believe that liberals invented attack the messenger not the message in order to combat Schlaflys intellect. Libs on this board are not as bright as some of the others Ive encountered over the years. I doubt if they realize how important Schlafly has been to conservatism. I hate to think what liberals would have done to her had she run for Congress. Neither Schlafly nor Buchanan is running for president, but neither is Pelosi; so its fair of me to suggest a comparison using nothing more than the markers you laid down. The Clearest Political and Constitutional Thinker of Our Time by Rep. Steve King 11/23/2011 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47706 Conviction and Courage by Patrick J. Buchanan 11/24/2011 http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47736
OK, I'll bite, 13 of the top 15 watched news programs are FOX commentators and shows. Radio is almost all conservative and the internet is indeed a media. If you wish to infer that CBS, NBC, and ABC hold the largest media audience and exclude all other media as if it doesn't exist, well, I guess you are right. Or, on the other hand, if you want to say that only the respected media is left wing, then I can agree with that also.
To clarkatticus: The point is: Conservative voices do exist but they are nowhere near a majority. Conservative voices like Rush Limbaugh began reaching a large audience after Ronald Reagan rescinded the Fairness Doctrine. When the Fairness Doctrine was enforced William F. Buckley, Jr. was pretty much it for conservatism on television, and only on Public Television. The Fairness Doctrine is gone along with liberalisms media monopoly, but the MSM still reaches more Americans than all of the conservative venues combined. Add public education, magazines, publishing in general, Hollywood, and TV entertainment shows to the liberal information machine and liberalism still drowns out conservatism. By no stretch of the imagination does volume equal respect. The dirty little secret is that the total number of liberals controlling the aforementioned venues is minute, yet that control makes it look like they are a vast majority speaking for the majority of Americans. Worse still, control of the media-education-entertainment complex disseminated the worldview of very small minority for decades. Even without the Fairness Doctrine stifling opposing views, conservatives are barely making a dent in combating the spread of worldwide socialism. Giving liberal politicians like Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons, Hussein, and so many others, a free pass when they do dirt is also an important practice in the way the MSM does business. Conservatives now have the voice to at least expose such people; it is the loss of the coverup that media libs hate more than they hate anything conservatives might say on any given issue. Liberals can combat issues by their sheer weight of numbers, but they cant fight it when one of their own is exposed. The best they can do is single out a conservative for a personal attack. Let me close with a slightly edited message I posted in 2007: Liberalism is populated by elitists who despise rank and file liberals much more than they despise conservatives with diplomas from the right schools. My liberals are also known as limousine liberals, not because they all get around town in limousines, but because they dabble at defending the unwashed, the unloved, and the unappreciative. My liberals regard the 1920s and 30s as the era of Camelot; home to the wittiest, the most brilliant, the most creative people ever assembled at the same time. My liberals have a spiritual affinity with the Algonquin Hotel. My liberals are convinced that the departed communicants who frequented the Algonquin Round Table said more of importance than did the host of the Last Supper and his quests. My liberals seldom leave Baghdad on the Hudson; whenever they do go abroad for business or pleasure they pine for Manhattan as Count Dracula longs to sleep in his native soil. My liberals tolerate visiting equals while holding them in contempt the second they leave Manhattan. My liberals will never rest until every human being on the planet accepts the printing press as the second most important invention of all time; finishing just behind the wheel. How do I know all of this since I never associated with my liberals? Easy answer: All of my adult life, I have been inundated by the importance my liberals assigned to themselves, their opinions, and their entire worldview. I arrived at my conclusions from what my liberals have been saying in newspapers, in magazines, in movies, and on the radio and television over many decades. Everything from the theater to the Metropolitan Opera, to the fawning over the author of the latest novel that nobody except liberals ever reads, or the latest stage play that 99.999 percent of Americans would not go see if they were given free tickets. One way or another, the rest of us hear about liberal authors, their books, and their plays just to make sure that we do not miss something important. I will bet you that two-hundred million Americans know the names of every liberal author who ever lived. I will also bet you that not more than a tiny fraction of Americans ever read books written by liberal authors. Yet talking about liberal authors, living and dead, is standard repartee for my liberals. I can understand the reason for the talk when it is a sales pitch. My guess is that they always talk about the same things when they are talking to each other. Liberalism is like a soap opera; a liberal can wake from a thirty year coma and not have missed a thing. And then there is the publishing industry itself. The entire liberal community in America orbits around the liberals in publishing. Liberals in the hinterland hold a janitor working in the New York Times building in higher esteem than Mother Teresa. Publishing is the turkey, everything else is the trimmings. Do not rush to label me a book burner because I am not knocking books per se. I read books and usually enjoy what I read. Now if only Douglas MacKinnons article turns out to be true a bunch of my liberals will be forced to find gainful employment. The Demise of Liberal Publishing By Douglas MacKinnon Friday, April 6, 2007 http://townhall.com/columnists/DouglasMacKinnon/2007/04/06/the_demise_of_liberal_publishing
Talk about a persecution complex. Try this, actually count all the commentators out there and and you will find a pretty even split. Print media is nearly dead. What we see out there is what America is, sadly, News is also business, if people want to listen to it, they will only pay for what they want. If you define "elitist" as educated I can agree wholeheartedly with that premis. I've got more bad news for ya, we are the government. It exists as we vote it in, there is no conspiracy big enough of controlling enough to do what you claim, control media and government, but the Koch bros are giving it the college try.
Your argument wins mine. The liberal media is dying in the 3 old networks, but then, everything is dying there, it is being replaced and watered down by cable because the system is archaic. I'm sorry, "old", I know big words annoy you. All the major news have ar least one commentator with an opposing view (except FOX) or a neutral broadcast. The bad thing is that the right is trained to look at any criticism as biased even if it is justified. What I am saying is that given the entire media, all forms and availability, both sides are equally represented. I am not sorry that the more educated learning institutions in the country lean toward progressives, to me it speaks to the higher intelligence of my beliefs gleaned (I'm sorry, gathered) from studying the issues. Should I include an emotecon to further show my sarcasm or is my sentence structure adequate?
Actually yer effort is noted but little else.The ability to articulate a point isn't that confounding.Unless one prefers to play the spin doctor. Where parsing of words,not inherent diplomacy of thought is considered more relevant than mere truism.Winston Churchill may not have been pleasant to the ears,but his inner substance of truism was a joy to the spirit.
I think I agree..but probably not. I think studying problems does not educate anyone on how or why..just when..maybe. History and facts are being re written by the progressives to meet their agendas.Obama is the classical form..not function. So keep up the hard work reading whats printed..ignoring what actually is spoken by those who lived and seen it. A whole generation turn over is about to happen..as the youngest of the baby boomers..I see nothing positive about anything. The newest "kids" are better at nothing..as shown by OWS..they cant even figure out who and what to protest.. As for Obama winning the White House last time I rest my case. Image is everything... substance means nothing. At least the young can hope they die young. Their future isn't too bright.
Churchill has a statue and a museum in my home town, along with a Christopher Wren church delivered brick by brick from London. He gave his famous "Iron Curtain" speech at our local college. By the time we were in high school we knew every thing to know about him. Truman liked him, that's good enough for me.
Sorry you hold our President in such low esteem, I think he is an honest decent man. My professor asked me once, "what one thing is everybody afraid of"?--the answer, change. I see a great future for America because I have studied the past and things are much better now. Yes, times are hard but they have been worse, and we are not near the end of the tunnel. I can bring you letters and articles that mirror your exact feelings from every era of our nations history. We will come out of this depression, people who lead do not whine about the present but plan for the future.
To clarkatticus: Dont be so sure of that. President Truman inherited Churchill and Stalin from FDR. I doubt if he liked Churchill any more than he liked Stalin. When Churchill sought to rouse America with his Iron Curtain speech, Truman, offered to send the USS Missouri to bring Stalin to the United States; promising to accompany him to the University of Missouri so that he might speak his mind, as Churchill had. Ive always thought that Truman just didnt like Churchill and probably didnt trust the British all that much either. I base my opinion on two things: Before Pearl Harbor, Truman was vehemently against Americas entry into another European war. That must have sent chills up Churchills spine. Of course, after Pearl Harbor Truman devoted himself to Americas victory. Prior to Pearl Harbor I believe he fully understood how England had used Woodrow Wilsons intellectual arrogance to bring the US into WWI on Englands side; a war Truman fought in. If I have it right about the post-WWII world: Truman was dealing with two WWII allies he neither liked or trusted. Churchill was first lord of the admiralty from 1914 to 1918. If there was a conspiracy involving the sinking of the Lusitania, and the subsequent sinking of American merchant vessels, Churchill most certainly had a hand in it. Truman was full of contradictions, but he was no fool. Knowing he couldnt do anything else about it, if he suspected an unprovable conspiracy that would be reason enough for him to want to rub Churchills nose in it by inviting Stalin to speak. Also in Trumans favor I have to say that I just dont think that he would have given away what FDR gave away at Yalta and Teheran. My reason for judging Truman so favorably without proof involves Afghanistan. When America was the only country with the atom bomb it was, in effect, the lone super power until American traitors handed so much material to the Soviet Union allowing the Soviets to build a bomb decades before they could have done it on their own. After WWII ended, the Soviets occupied Afghanistan. It was Truman who told Stalin to hit the road in 48 hours or else. Stalin got the message and departed from Afghanistan real quick. Had Truman agreed with FDRs decisions at Yalta and Teheran a Soviet-occupied Afghanistan would not have mattered to him. My point is this: Churchill manipulated FDR just as he was instrumental in manipulating Americas entry into WWI. There is every reason to believe that Truman judged Churchill accordingly.
Churchill gave his speech at Westminster College in Fulton MO the site of the museum. In Trumans letters to his wife prior to the war he was no fan of Germany and knew where the train was going. Truman was a simple man, not given to complex ideologies. He knew his job and was straightforward in doing it, doing what was best for America. He truly liked Churchill but was aware of his connivance.
Sounds like a buch of petty nit-picking (Half of which is unsubstanciated talking points) crap to me. Even if it were all true shes an angel compared to others. How about Newt leading the impeachment for a blow job while, at the same time, cheating on his wife. Then states hes not a hypocrite because "he never lied under oath". Not to mention his first marriage was to his high school teacher (ok, well thats pimp; he can have that one.) but divorced her while being treated for cancer then says "I don't remember that". As a side point, Weiner get thrown to the wolves for sending a twitter of himself in magic underpants and this old hound dog (hes married to a baby atm)has a shot at the oval office? But they are almost all puppets to their cash flow anyway, few believe anything at all. Anyway back to point. People have Nancy because she is good at getting her job done. It's really as simple as that.
