Anyone willing to call him a "Hitler"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxOverlord

I've heard of the organ donor show. In t.v there are no rules for taste anymore.
I'm pretty much immune to anything that people are willing to do for money or ratings or power or whatever anymore.
It's what I call the Sickness of the World. Sickness as in incurable.

It's a very troubling thing to know(individual perception again) that there are no places to go where
one can get "the truth" anymore.
We can get what we like or want to hear.
We can maybe get a taste of reality.

It's easy for me to say "stay the course" or "finish the job."
I don't have to wake up to blood and my buddies guts displayed before me.
No sane person could be in favor of war for war's sake.

I just wish the left and right would do something besides worry about even numbered years.
The concept of "service" in the political realm is dead and gone IMO.

---

Sorry bud, I get what I need and filter the bullshit myself.

I do agree with your last sentence though.

I think more ethics rules should be put in congress. A lot of corrupt behavior is exhibited right in front of our face....and it's legal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxOverlord

I've heard of the organ donor show. In t.v there are no rules for taste anymore.
I'm pretty much immune to anything that people are willing to do for money or ratings or power or whatever anymore.
It's what I call the Sickness of the World. Sickness as in incurable.

It's a very troubling thing to know(individual perception again) that there are no places to go where
one can get "the truth" anymore.
We can get what we like or want to hear.
We can maybe get a taste of reality.

It's easy for me to say "stay the course" or "finish the job."
I don't have to wake up to blood and my buddies guts displayed before me.
No sane person could be in favor of war for war's sake.

I just wish the left and right would do something besides worry about even numbered years.
The concept of "service" in the political realm is dead and gone IMO.

---

Sorry bud, I get what I need and filter the bullshit myself.

I do agree with your last sentence though.

I think more ethics rules should be put in congress. A lot of corrupt behavior is exhibited right in front of our face....and it's legal.

---

Why do I get the distinct feeling that what I say and what you hear are two completely different things?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxOverlord

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Sorry bud, I get what I need and filter the bullshit myself.

I do agree with your last sentence though.

I think more ethics rules should be put in congress. A lot of corrupt behavior is exhibited right in front of our face....and it's legal.

---

Why do I get the distinct feeling that what I say and what you hear are two completely different things?

---

Only you know that, MO. You talk about the news being so bad that you can't the truth. Well, if there is an outright lie than of course. However, there is no vast left-wing conspiracy on the truth. You have fuck ups like Dan Rather's on Bush's service in the Coast Guard which an outright lie. You don't get crap like that often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

I think more ethics rules should be put in congress. A lot of corrupt behavior is exhibited right in front of our face....and it's legal.

---

Yeah.

Ironic, isn't it? :whistling
















Alright, I'll bite-

Who would you have make these ethics rules? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxOverlord

Why do I get the distinct feeling that what I say and what you hear are two completely different things?

---

Only you know that, MO. You talk about the news being so bad that you can't the truth. Well, if there is an outright lie than of course. However, there is no vast left-wing conspiracy on the truth. You have fuck ups like Dan Rather's on Bush's service in the Coast Guard which an outright lie. You don't get crap like that often.

---

My point was the blatant abuse of knowledge.
I don't have a personal problem with filtering the BS.

The question is where to go to get an unbiased view.....again.
It is a question. That's all.

I'll ask you this. Do you think Dan Rather knew it was a lie while reporting it?
It doesn't have to be a vast conspiracy. It's men being men positioning themselves for dominance.

This is a good point towards what the Libs. don't seem to understand.
Human Nature.
You can't fix things with more government and regulations on the people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxOverlord

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Only you know that, MO. You talk about the news being so bad that you can't the truth. Well, if there is an outright lie than of course. However, there is no vast left-wing conspiracy on the truth. You have fuck ups like Dan Rather's on Bush's service in the Coast Guard which an outright lie. You don't get crap like that often.

---

My point was the blatant abuse of knowledge.
I don't have a personal problem with filtering the BS.

The question is where to go to get an unbiased view.....again.
It is a question. That's all.

I'll ask you this. Do you think Dan Rather knew it was a lie while reporting it?

No. However, I think he knew it was the possibly of it being a lie and didn't bother double-checking his source by verifying the truth. To me that is a travesty especially when making such allegations against the President.

It doesn't have to be a vast conspiracy. It's men being men positioning themselves for dominance.

This is a good point towards what the Libs. don't seem to understand.
Human Nature.
You can't fix things with more government and regulations on the people.

---

What does that have to do with truth in the media?

I'm not saying add laws with regard to the media.

Please explain.

Also yeah some things do need regulation. This is not a free-for-all or the wild, wild west.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxOverlord

My point was the blatant abuse of knowledge.
I don't have a personal problem with filtering the BS.

The question is where to go to get an unbiased view.....again.
It is a question. That's all.

I'll ask you this. Do you think Dan Rather knew it was a lie while reporting it?

No. However, I think he knew it was the possibly of it being a lie and didn't bother double-checking his source by verifying the truth. To me that is a travesty especially when making such allegations against the President.

It doesn't have to be a vast conspiracy. It's men being men positioning themselves for dominance.

This is a good point towards what the Libs. don't seem to understand.
Human Nature.
You can't fix things with more government and regulations on the people.

---

What does that have to do with truth in the media?

I'm not saying add laws with regard to the media.

Please explain.

Also yeah some things do need regulation. This is not a free-for-all or the wild, wild west.

---

I was only bleeding one point into another.
Whether you believe in a left or right conspiracy is only true as far as it is at it's base a struggle for dominance....which in turn is human nature.
Truth in media will be spun to whatever side you want to have dominance.

The Fairness Doctrine,for example,is a regulation the Dems want to impose on what they perceive as a right wing dominance of the airwaves.
This has nothing to do with "Fairness."

In a free market society such as ours demand drives supply.
There happens to be a much much larger demand for conservative voices on the airwaves........the Dems call this "UnFair."
Enter the Fairness Doctrine.

They know they can't win in an open debate of ideas so they must "level the playing field." More Regulations....
Do you see where I'm going with this?

And yes this is a free-for-all.
It's individual pursuance of perfection and growth as related to ones idea of freedom and achievement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxOverlord

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

What does that have to do with truth in the media?

I'm not saying add laws with regard to the media.

Please explain.

Also yeah some things do need regulation. This is not a free-for-all or the wild, wild west.

---

I was only bleeding one point into another.
Whether you believe in a left or right conspiracy is only true as far as it is at it's base a struggle for dominance....which in turn is human nature.
Truth in media will be spun to whatever side you want to have dominance.

The Fairness Doctrine,for example,is a regulation the Dems want to impose on what they perceive as a right wing dominance of the airwaves.
This has nothing to do with "Fairness."

In a free market society such as ours demand drives supply.
There happens to be a much much larger demand for conservative voices on the airwaves........the Dems call this "UnFair."
Enter the Fairness Doctrine.

They know they can't win in an open debate of ideas so they must "level the playing field." More Regulations....
Do you see where I'm going with this?

And yes this is a free-for-all.
It's individual pursuance of perfection and growth as related to ones idea of freedom and achievement.

---

Oh I understand why the Fairness Doctrine is there. From what I gather, he with the most money would win. I dunno how fair the Fairness Doctrine actually is though.

On one side, you have some young bright up-and-comer running for office. On the other you have the established politician that's been on TV before and can afford to run numerous personal attack ads thoroughly crushing any voice the young up-and-comer has. The established politician is bankrolled by big business.

Funny you said something about demand for conservative voices. I rather hear neo-cons too when many of the current ones talk much shit....and I think that's the reason. I'm laughing or saying, "I can't believe people believe that shit" but at the same time there are people that go. "Hey he's got a point."

Is it fair to stifle the demand, probably not.

Should the most money automatically mean a bid to the White House? No

Should there be a levelled playing field? Probably. How it's done is debatable.

I personally don't want Dems or Repubs ruling. I want it balanced.

Chavez is a tad too fond of pro-Government street rallies for my taste and I am not entirely convinced all his economic policies are sound. However, he is a genuinely popular politician who has a big support base and was elected as fairly as many around the world and a lot more fairly than most. Nor, to my knowledge, has he any desire to wipe any specific race from the face of the planet or invade any other country - so I think I will hold on the Hitler comparison.

He wouldn't be my choice of leader but I respect the Venezuelans right to choose him and I have no doubt he is a lot better than many previous Central and S American leaders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxOverlord

It is funny that the slogan "We report You decide." is so well received.
I always found it funny they had to make that apparent...get me?

---

If it was more than just a slogan it would be what we need, however for us to be able to decide.............................the reporting has to be accurate.

As it stands, much like the "fair and balanced" slogan, it's meaningless.


I mean, if even their slogans aren't accurate ;)