Subject:
|
Re: Freedom from information
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:33:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
450 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> It's funny-- I used to *hate* Rush. I couldn't listen long enough to get past
> all of the darn *schtick*. But putting his personality aside, I find his
> politics pretty sound. I wouldn't characterize him as "hateful" though...
In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit that I haven't listened
to him at all for several years, except for an occasional snippet while I'm
driving. When I did listen, he played at least as fast-and-loose with facts
as Moore does, and his errors consistently favored republican interests or
corporate propaganda. On his few non-pre-screened TV appearances, he's
generally done quite poorly. His strength (like Moore's, I guess) lies in
playing to his established audience.
> As far as the issue of Class Warfare, I'm curious as to how you would say
> that a conservative would beat that drum?
I should have been more clear. Conservatives that I've heard using that
buzzword include Bob Novak, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Mike Reagan, a
smattering of Pittsburgh-Local conservative pundits, and even W himself
(though I'm at a loss to find a transcript of the speech/conference in which
he said it). Invariably, the way they use it is to say something like
"liberals want to start class warfare over the Bush tax cut" or "liberals
are accusing Bush of starting class warfare through his economic policy."
> I get the impression that, given the opportunity, the Left would
> happily turn the US in a socialist state. But I seriously digress:-p
Often, my impression is that the Right would happily transform the
population into an low-wage, uninsured, unprotected, and Union-less body of
unrepresented workers. But I likewise digress! 8^)
> > He's also an award-winning,
> > card-carrying member of the NRA who rightly identifies the NRA as a puppet
> > of the huge corporate firearms industry.
>
> There it is again-- bad, "huge corporate __ industry" Mention the "industrial
> military complex" and we will have a winner:-) And what was that you were
> saying earlier about conspiracies;-)
I don't think it's unreasonable to identify the NRA as the lobbying arm of
a hugely profitable industry. As such, it can only truly be relied upon to
serve the interests of that industry. I admit, many of the NRA's policies
are consistent with people who simply want to protect rights of gun
ownership or to promote gun education, but at the end of the day the point
is to make money.
Objectively, there's nothing wrong with making money, although industry
can generally be relied upon to disregard its impact upon the individual.
Witness the enthusiasm with which the NRA raced to the sites of shootings in
Columbine, Flint, and (I believe) Tucson, mere days after the traumatic
events occurred! Of course, the NRA can assemble peaceably wherever it
likes, but simple human compassion seems totally absent from such displays.
End of rant.
> Talk about your broad brush strokes-- how many times
> has the Left condemned the white male. This world would be a utopia by now
> were it not for this horrific and disgusting group!
Absolutely! Let's get rid of all of them!
Seriously, TWM is too easy a scapegoat. Granted, much of what is "wrong"
in today's world is the result of centuries of action by TWM, but there's a
bandwagon tendency to condemn him for everything from the decaying orbit of
the moon to the heartbreak of psoriasis.
> As for MM's assertions-- some may be true, but they only tell a portion of the
> truth. Selective analysis is more about driving agenda (or worse-- ignorance)
> than elucidating the truth-- an endeavor that I doubt he really cares to pursue.
Before "Bowling for Columbine" came out, Moore expressed his view that the
film probably wouldn't have a greatly transformative impact on its own, but
he hoped that someone would see the film and take the next step. To that
end, I don't fault him too much for presenting only one side, since Fox's
"fair and balanced" reporting is anything but fair or balanced. Similarly,
Rush Limbaugh has never, as far as I'm aware, taken a pro-Democrat stand on
any issue, and it's hardly the case that Dems are 100% wrong 100% of the
time, just as Republicans aren't always wrong.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Freedom from information
|
| (...) I try...:-) (...) Yes. Reminds me of the People's Choice Awards. I am suspicious of those as well-- I am a believer in relying on the marketplace to define the success of many things. After all, a platinum record sold 1,000,000 (or whatever (...) (21 years ago, 27-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
