PDA

View Full Version : Bush is like Hitler



ConHunter
09-16-2011, 11:02 AM
Since you people like to compare Obama to Hitler, I thought I would post this old article comparing Bush to Hitler.

George W. Bush is Becoming More Like Hitler Everyday

1) The republican party and Bush almost mirror the propaganda methods used by Hitler in old nazi germany. The republicans are calling this fight against terrorism a war, this is propaganda. It is not a war, congress has to declare war and they have not done that. It is propaganda to call a fight against terrorism a war.

Hitler on Propaganda - From chapter 6 of Mein Kampf:

The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision.

All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction.

More Here:

http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DocPropa.htm

2) Hitler was born in Austria, he called it "the homeland" and Bush calls america the homeland, Bush uses the term "homeland" quite a bit and named the new security agency "The department of homeland security" frankly it makes me cringe when I hear homeland instead of american or country. I would prefer "The department of american security" and Bush could say "the country" instead of the homeland. My 78 year old father fought hitler and the nazis in WWII, he even stole a nazi flag from hitlers house. He also hates the term "homeland" when referring to anything american.

Bush Administration's Homeland Security Freudian Slip

If the President's newly created Office of Homeland Security sounds to you a bit reminiscent of propaganda from Nazi Germany, you're not alone in that suspicion.

According to the Washington Times (one of President Bush's strongest defenders among U.S. newspapers), Texas Homeland Security chief David Dewhurst claims it was an error when an ad he commissioned in support of the Office of Homeland Security featured a Luftwaffe officer.

More Here:

http://www.baltech.org/lederman/bush-homeland-security-10-30-01.html

3) Hitler created a police force to control the people, it was called the "Gestapo." Bush wants to implement the TIPS program that would be similar to the "Gestapo." He wants 10 million americans to sign up to spy on other americans. We can't process the intelligence we get now let alone process the reports from 10 million american spies who have no training in spying on people.

HOMELAND SECURITY...HOMEGROWN NAZIS

In the late 1930's, cognizant of the treachery that had ensconced him in power, Hitler decided he needed a police force to keep a watchful eye on the citizenry. He named this group the "Geheime Staatspolezei." The literal translation is "Home Nation Police." A near approximation would be "Office of Homeland Security." But the group is known throughout the world by its more sinister appellation: "Gestapo."...Was that a knock on the door ?

More Here:

http://www.geocities.com/northstarzone/HSECURITY.html

4) Hitler used the military against the citizens and Bush wants to do it to. The Bush administration has directed lawyers in the Departments of Justice and Defense to review the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and any other laws that sharply restrict the military's ability to participate in domestic law enforcement. Military leaders oppose Bush and support the restrictions because their troops were not specifically trained in those roles, and they worried that domestic tasks could lead to serious political problems. This is really scary, the military is trained to kill people not be policeman.

More Here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/21/politics/21PENT.html

5) Bush said he would like to be a dictator because it would sure make things easier. Hitler said about the same thing, then he became a dictator. Since the sole difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is that the leaders are popularly elected by the masses of people rather than by seizing office by force, being appointed by an elite or by assuming power via a fixed election there can be no other way to describe the Bush administration than as a dictatorship.

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that there were going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.

Link:

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html

6) Bush and asskkkroft have suspended the constitution here in america. Hitler did the same thing in 1933 when he brought the nazi party to power. We have an american citizen in jail right now who has been refused his due process and not allowed to see an attorney. He is called an enemy combantant to get around the constitution even though we are not at war.

Adolf Hitler - 1889-1945 - German Dictator

In 1932 Hitler was unsuccessful in the presidential elections against Hindenburg, but Hitler became chancellor in 1933. He then suspended the constitution and brought his Nazi Party to power.

More Here:

http://www.absolutefacts.com/data/hitler.htm

7) Bush's family has ties to nazi germany. It all started with Prescott Bush, George W. Bush's grandfather. In 1918 it is said that he robbed the grave and stole the skull of the Native American warrior Geronimo as part of an initiation into Yale's Skull and Bones Society. The Skull and Bones society has been important to the Bush Family. George Bush Sr. and George W. Bush were also members of this secret society.

Prescott Bush got into a little bit of trouble back in the 1940s. While American soldiers were fighting the Nazis in WWII, three of Prescott Bush's companies were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act because they were selling fuel to and laundering money for the Nazis.

More Here:

http://www.hereinreality.com/familyvalues.html

According to former U.S. Justice Dept. Nazi War Crimes Prosecutor John Loftus — who is today the director of the Florida Holocaust Museum — "The Bush family fortune came from the Third Reich,"according to the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Along with the Rockefellers, DuPonts, General Motors and Henry Ford, banks and shipping companies operated by the Bush family were crucial players in setting up the industrial power behind the Third Reich. These companies poured hundreds of millions of dollars into IG Farben and provided it with technology for tactically essential synthetic materials — while withholding the same materials and patents from the U.S. government.

According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, IG Farben built and operated more than 40 concentration camps in Nazi-occupied Europe, including Auschwitz. At their slave labor/factory/death camps chemicals, weapons, drugs, synthetic fuels and other materials vital to the Nazi war effort were manufactured.

That the Bush wealth and prominence in American politics is derived from Prescott Bush and George Herbert Walker’s support of Hitler is a historical fact. To offset their reputation as WWII traitors former President Bush joined the US airforce after the US Congress seized his father's banking assets in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

More Here:

http://www.citypaper.net/articles/011801/sl.slant.shtml

What conservatives don't yet fully realize is that the Bush family - including GW - are neither genuine Republicans nor are they genuine conservatives. What they are is genuine corporate-fascists. The minimally qualified GW Bush is a man whose entire career is based solely on his father being George Bush and all the helping hands that connection brought into play.

The four US Supreme Court justices who gave Bush the presidency were either appointed by his father, had sons working for law firms representing GW in the contested election lawsuits or had publicly stated that they had a strong personal commitment to making sure Gore never became President. Justice Scalia said he'd resign if Gore became President. Justice O'Conner said she could not retire if Gore became President because a liberal Justice would replace her.

Both Justices Rhenquist and Scalia have sons working for Bush law firms involved in the election. Justice Thomas' wife works for both the far right Heritage Foundation and the Bush transition team. These Justice's flawed and highly partisan ruling trashed the entire idea of States rights - the very same conservative ideology they have so vigorously defended-not to mention the rule of law, equal protection and the idea of judicial impartiality and restraint.

All hail our new American Furhrer, GW Bush and the real President of the United States, Mr. Dick Cheney. They are the best fascists money can buy.

More Here:

http://www.konformist.com/2000/bush-dictator.htm

http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/hitlerbush.htm

Apocalypse
09-16-2011, 11:11 AM
Fuck you SarasotaRepuke! I don't care what you say about me having links in my sig.
I'm not wasting time with that garbage, or posting a comparison of Obama, Hitler or Nazi's It can be done.

But with that as your sig. I give an hour before your locked into the Ion Cannon and fired out of here.

obx
09-16-2011, 11:16 AM
Actually, I think Obama is more like Idi Amin.

Apocalypse
09-16-2011, 11:19 AM
I use to say oBama was like Carter. But now, I tend to think Carter was better then oBama. Least Carter did some thing.

DumbAss Tanker
09-16-2011, 11:26 AM
Yeah, I don't see Obama as Hitler at all...more like a blend -

The thundering incompetence of Carter;
The bombastic ego and unflagging self-belief of Mussolini;
The economic understanding and ethics of Mr. Haney from Green Acres.

:popcorn:

Zathras
09-16-2011, 11:27 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_VcLpcwxqv_U/THf0mDwIXCI/AAAAAAAAAAM/XyCGQDIRNj0/s1600/shark_derp_durr_hurr5.jpg

Fixed for accuracy....nice knowing you DerpHunter....well, no, no it wasn't.

bijou
09-16-2011, 11:28 AM
ConHunter won't be with us for the next few days.

Zathras
09-16-2011, 11:30 AM
ConHunter won't be with us for the next few days.

I'll be he's pounding his keyboard with all that rage now.

Can you remove his ablility to have a signatue as well?

Edit: I guess you can.

Apocalypse
09-16-2011, 11:38 AM
ConHunter won't be with us for the next few days.
Gee. Didn't see that one coming. ;):D

ralph wiggum
09-16-2011, 12:07 PM
I wonder if Con Hunter realizes that President Bush has been out of office for three years already.

Yep, BDS never goes away.

Zafod
09-16-2011, 12:14 PM
this post gets 0 bongs

Wei Wu Wei
09-16-2011, 12:40 PM
Hitler on Propaganda - From chapter 6 of Mein Kampf:

The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision.

All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction.


This is very interesting and probably deserves it's own thread.

Hitler was an evil bastard, but a very smart evil bastard, and he did do some things incredibly effectively. One of the most effective aspects of the Nazi regime was their propaganda, he knows what he's talking about here.

I think we can take note of this today.

Look at the top News networks in America: It is a race to the bottom, a dumbing down of anything close to "news".

One big thing that sticks out, the absolute lack of in-depth discussion. It doesn't exist in American news. The cable news networks air 24 hours a day, they have more time than anyone to air lengthy, in-depth discussions about important issues, but that's not what they do. You will never see an in-depth interview about anything, unless it's a person talking to bill o'reilly about a book.

Important issues are reduced to 3 minute shouting matches, with pundits talking over guests if they talk for more than 30 seconds at a time. With this style of "debate", it is absolutely impossible to get anything more than talking points in. Cable News networks will bring in a new guest at a new time, to do another 3 minute shouting match on the same topic, with the same talking points.

All of the news networks are guilty of this but I know more about Fox because that's the network I watch the most. If you tune in early to watch Fox and Friends and Megyn Kelly, you already have every single topic, and every single talking point that is going to be repeated throughout the entire day's broadcasting.

A real discussion requires letting people talk for more than 30 seconds at a time, and interviews that last for 30 minutes to an hour, not the length of a commercial break.

This makes it impossible to have any sort of intellectual analysis, debate, discussion, inquiry, or criticism on American News. It becomes a 24 hour cycle of various flavors of dumbed down propaganda.

This is why American "news" is event-based propaganda, and nothing more.

the director
09-16-2011, 02:47 PM
@Wei Wu Wei -

Not so much.

If someone one has their eyes glued to Fox and Friends all morning instead of working, then that person is either about to be fired, or already has been fired and is at home unemployed.

Daytime or during work hours news cable shows are intended to provide an overview of significant events that have happened or are about to happen. Every once in a while, a car chase. 9-5 news cable isn't supposed to be deep intellectually, because most people are only glancing at the screen for a couple of minutes before going into a meeting, waiting for an email, etc.

If I want "deep intellectual" analysis, I can either go online (Fox encourages its viewers who are interested in a story to go online to get more details), or I can watch political analysis shows that are on after work. Fox does not have any shows that report new news after 4 or 5pm, but instead it is a rehash and analysis of what happened during the day.

If I personally want to debate, then I can log onto this lovely site.

In any event, in this day in age, it is the responsibility of each American to find more information on news that interests them.

So no, I don't think Rupert is following Mein Kampf chapter six, but rather has a keen sense of how to provide information to viewers in a way that fits his viewer's needs, and is profitable.

NJCardFan
09-16-2011, 03:07 PM
ConHunter won't be with us for the next few days.
Ban him forever please. Banning him for only a few days will only serve to prolong his idiocy. He will undoubtedly come back and post the same inane childish drivel. I think the funniest thing is that these people like to ak about propaganda but last I looked, the GOP or Bush aren't the ones who repeat the same mantras over and over again. Or such gems like this(playing to the stupid of course):

If you elect a Republican, another black church will burn.

George Bush hates black people.

Republicans want to take away your social security.

The rich don't pay their fair share of taxes.

michaelsean
09-16-2011, 04:55 PM
I couldn't get past the first paragraph so I'll comment on that. How exactly does Congress declare war? The constitution does not give out a specific process. Congress did authorize the use of force. Sounds like a declaration of war to me.

So what do you think about LBJ's war on poverty? Obviously congress declared no war on poverty.

SarasotaRepub
09-16-2011, 05:16 PM
ConHunter is our old buddy Liberal Guy, I'm sure some remember him and the board he ran for a while. :D

JoeKwonDo
09-16-2011, 07:30 PM
Wow CH - really, you still have your panties all balled up about Bush. You could be the record case of BDS besides Ovomit!

txradioguy
09-17-2011, 01:00 PM
ConHunter is our old buddy Liberal Guy, I'm sure some remember him and the board he ran for a while. :D


Ahhh The Rabbi. Yeah I pwned Bugsy a.k.a. mike_c over there at LU. Completely ran him off the site.

Wei Wu Wei
09-17-2011, 01:24 PM
@Wei Wu Wei -

Not so much.

If someone one has their eyes glued to Fox and Friends all morning instead of working, then that person is either about to be fired, or already has been fired and is at home unemployed.

Daytime or during work hours news cable shows are intended to provide an overview of significant events that have happened or are about to happen. Every once in a while, a car chase. 9-5 news cable isn't supposed to be deep intellectually, because most people are only glancing at the screen for a couple of minutes before going into a meeting, waiting for an email, etc.

If I want "deep intellectual" analysis, I can either go online (Fox encourages its viewers who are interested in a story to go online to get more details), or I can watch political analysis shows that are on after work. Fox does not have any shows that report new news after 4 or 5pm, but instead it is a rehash and analysis of what happened during the day.

If I personally want to debate, then I can log onto this lovely site.

In any event, in this day in age, it is the responsibility of each American to find more information on news that interests them.

So no, I don't think Rupert is following Mein Kampf chapter six, but rather has a keen sense of how to provide information to viewers in a way that fits his viewer's needs, and is profitable.

Other news networks (generally non-American) actually do provide in-depth discussion and analysis.

Tune it to Al Jazeera English and you can find hour-long interviews about important topics. People are allowed to talk at length and develop their points of view, without people being shouted down or talked over after 30 seconds, and discussions are meant to be informative, not an entertainment spectacle where two sides try to "win" a 3 minute argument.

You can't claim that it's simply impracticable or impossible. American "news" is simply not interested in broadcasting thoughtful, informative material, it's more of reality-tv spectacle for adults.

Rockntractor
09-17-2011, 01:27 PM
Other news networks (generally non-American) actually do provide in-depth discussion and analysis.

Tune it to Al Jazeera English and you can find hour-long interviews about important topics. People are allowed to talk at length and develop their points of view, without people being shouted down or talked over after 30 seconds, and discussions are meant to be informative, not an entertainment spectacle where two sides try to "win" a 3 minute argument.

You can't claim that it's simply impracticable or impossible. American "news" is simply not interested in broadcasting thoughtful, informative material, it's more of reality-tv spectacle for adults.

You should move to Saudi Arabia where you can trust the news.

NJCardFan
09-17-2011, 09:32 PM
Other news networks (generally non-American) actually do provide in-depth discussion and analysis.

Tune it to Al Jazeera English and you can find hour-long interviews about important topics. People are allowed to talk at length and develop their points of view, without people being shouted down or talked over after 30 seconds, and discussions are meant to be informative, not an entertainment spectacle where two sides try to "win" a 3 minute argument.

You can't claim that it's simply impracticable or impossible. American "news" is simply not interested in broadcasting thoughtful, informative material, it's more of reality-tv spectacle for adults.
Al-Jazeera, huh. This is the same network that at the start of the Iraq war interviewed an injured little girl who said that she was hurt by a missile and when asked what kind of missile, she said it was an American missile. They're about as unbiased as Pravda.

newshutr
09-17-2011, 09:38 PM
I'd think WWW would follow the North Korean news services.. You know, the ones that thank the Fearless and Glorious leader for rain and the three grains of rice they got to eat today..

Apache
09-17-2011, 11:07 PM
Why do people post whore ??????:confused:

txradioguy
09-18-2011, 09:55 AM
You should move to Saudi Arabia where you can trust the news.

Gotta love the belief that unless a news organization is bashing Republicans...the rich...and Capitalism...it can't be trusted.

DumbAss Tanker
09-18-2011, 02:14 PM
Why do people post whore ??????:confused:

Yes, why? WHY???












+1

the director
09-18-2011, 03:04 PM
Other news networks (generally non-American) actually do provide in-depth discussion and analysis.

Tune it to Al Jazeera English and you can find hour-long interviews about important topics. People are allowed to talk at length and develop their points of view, without people being shouted down or talked over after 30 seconds, and discussions are meant to be informative, not an entertainment spectacle where two sides try to "win" a 3 minute argument.

You can't claim that it's simply impracticable or impossible. American "news" is simply not interested in broadcasting thoughtful, informative material, it's more of reality-tv spectacle for adults.

Not so much.

I've watched/read both the English and translated Arabic al-Jazeera. The english bias is subdued, but the anti-US sentiment on the Arabic version is appauling. I find it amusing that liberals fall for english al-Jazeera so easily.

BBCW and CNN-i are traditional news channels, they don't offer much analysis but more coverage and news reporting, which is a good thing. In fact I am pretty sure CNN-i is purposely designed to be so politically vanilla at times it is a little boring.

And while there are a couple of shows on Fox that have people shouting over each other (a show that is on Sundays comes to mind), mostly what I see during traditional work hours is a CNN-i kind of format with the news more America-focused and twinged to make it palatable to conservatives.

And I'm not saying that it is impractical or impossible, in fact I said that Fox has several hours of programming with a host controlling the course of discussion and several guests offering different analysis, but usually it is all very professional. Sometimes there is screaming and shouting but then the host either goes to commerical or regains control over the situation.

What I did say is that during work hours employees don't have time to sit down for an hour and watch a news show, but rather they are usually watching a couple minutes of news every now and then, and American media knows this so they keep their daytime programming lighter and easier to digest to connect to their customers.

Wei Wu Wei
09-18-2011, 09:27 PM
Al-Jazeera, huh. This is the same network that at the start of the Iraq war interviewed an injured little girl who said that she was hurt by a missile and when asked what kind of missile, she said it was an American missile. They're about as unbiased as Pravda.

What is unreasonable about that? We engaged a "shock and awe" campaign in Iraq, and dropped a lot of explosives on that country, with many civilian casualties. These are all records of fact.

What is the problem with reporting the facts on the ground?

What's wrong is only reporting Pentagon-approved whitewashed images designed to downplay the real effects of war.

Wei Wu Wei
09-18-2011, 09:39 PM
Not so much.

I've watched/read both the English and translated Arabic al-Jazeera. The english bias is subdued, but the anti-US sentiment on the Arabic version is appauling. I find it amusing that liberals fall for english al-Jazeera so easily.

BBCW and CNN-i are traditional news channels, they don't offer much analysis but more coverage and news reporting, which is a good thing. In fact I am pretty sure CNN-i is purposely designed to be so politically vanilla at times it is a little boring.

And while there are a couple of shows on Fox that have people shouting over each other (a show that is on Sundays comes to mind), mostly what I see during traditional work hours is a CNN-i kind of format with the news more America-focused and twinged to make it palatable to conservatives.

And I'm not saying that it is impractical or impossible, in fact I said that Fox has several hours of programming with a host controlling the course of discussion and several guests offering different analysis, but usually it is all very professional. Sometimes there is screaming and shouting but then the host either goes to commerical or regains control over the situation.

It's not only shouting, there is some shouting but that isn't my main problem, it's the absolute lack of depth or critical analysis. Each guest is allowed to respond for about 20 seconds on a given question, before the host moves it for the next guest to give their talking point. They discuss issues of war, economics, jobs, health care, torture, immigration and more, but they dumb it down to 20 second sound bites. There is no way anything informative can actually be said there.

Even on the "real news" aspects of Fox's broadcasting, stories are given just a brief overview.




What I did say is that during work hours employees don't have time to sit down for an hour and watch a news show, but rather they are usually watching a couple minutes of news every now and then, and American media knows this so they keep their daytime programming lighter and easier to digest to connect to their customers.


Only a couple hours of the day is dedicated to reading headlines on Fox, the rest is dedicated to jokes, playful banter, gimmick stories, or outright propaganda.

The morning and afternoon shows include Fox and Friends, Megyn Kelly and The Five, all of which are entertaining, but are FAR from informative.

I understand and agree that during working hours, it's important to keep the news short and simple, reading headlines, but what about the rest of the broadcasting day?

Their primetime lineup is O Reilly, Hannity, Greta, just pure right wing punditry full of shouting and outlandish "infotainment".

There is no such thing as a totally unbiased news network, that's not what I'm talking about, but there is such a thing as quality, informative news programming, which includes debate, discussion, and insightful analysis. The only thing is, you won't find it on American networks.

Wei Wu Wei
09-18-2011, 09:41 PM
I love watching Fox, and I know many people do, but you don't have to delude yourself and defend it as quality, informative news. It's conservative entertainment plus headlines.

the director
09-18-2011, 11:12 PM
I'm not saying that Fox News is the pinnacle of news reporting in America, in fact across the board the media is very watered down. But a key thing to remember is that a successful business, which Fox News definitely is, is one that is able to connect to the wants and needs of their customer base. Essentially, the end product is a reflection of the customer.

For example, lets say as an ice cream shoppe owner I pay for an agency to sample my town's residents and find out that pistacio ice cream is by far the favorite. Thusly, as a smart business owner, I make all of my expensive treats and experiments with pistacio to ensure I sell my product and turn a profit.

In this case you are criticizing me, the ice cream shoppe owner, for carrying a lot of pistacio ice cream and not enough vanilla. It makes no sense. If the people wanted vanilla, I'd carry a lot more vanilla.

If people wanted long-winded indepth analysis, Fox would carry long-winded indepth analysis.

Wei Wu Wei
09-19-2011, 12:15 PM
I'm not saying that Fox News is the pinnacle of news reporting in America, in fact across the board the media is very watered down. But a key thing to remember is that a successful business, which Fox News definitely is, is one that is able to connect to the wants and needs of their customer base. Essentially, the end product is a reflection of the customer.

For example, lets say as an ice cream shoppe owner I pay for an agency to sample my town's residents and find out that pistacio ice cream is by far the favorite. Thusly, as a smart business owner, I make all of my expensive treats and experiments with pistacio to ensure I sell my product and turn a profit.

In this case you are criticizing me, the ice cream shoppe owner, for carrying a lot of pistacio ice cream and not enough vanilla. It makes no sense. If the people wanted vanilla, I'd carry a lot more vanilla.

If people wanted long-winded indepth analysis, Fox would carry long-winded indepth analysis.

This is the problem with the "free market is always best" ideology. It's the free market, and it is the response to consumer demand that has created the low quality of American news. People seem to think that the free market will always produce the "best" outcomes, but the free market has produced low quality entertainment "news", it has created Jersey Shore and American Idol, it has created countless shows, movies, and music videos that are absolutely devoid of anything that could be considered values or morals.

All of the awful garbage spewed out through the media that people worry will erode traditional values is a product of this free market driven industry, giving people what they want, which happens to be the "edgy" "controversial" and "over the top".

There are times, many times, when "what is good for business" doesn't match up with what is good in other areas. For example, in the media, what is good for business doesn't always match with what is good for values, doesn't always match what is good for intellectual growth, doesn't always match what is good for honest critical reporting of those in power.

Starbuck
09-19-2011, 12:50 PM
This is the problem with the "free market is always best" ideology. It's the free market, and it is the response to consumer demand that has created the low quality of American news. People seem to think that the free market will always produce the "best" outcomes, but the free market has produced low quality entertainment "news", it has created Jersey Shore and American Idol, it has created countless shows, movies, and music videos that are absolutely devoid of anything that could be considered values or morals.

All of the awful garbage spewed out through the media that people worry will erode traditional values is a product of this free market driven industry, giving people what they want, which happens to be the "edgy" "controversial" and "over the top".

There are times, many times, when "what is good for business" doesn't match up with what is good in other areas. For example, in the media, what is good for business doesn't always match with what is good for values, doesn't always match what is good for intellectual growth, doesn't always match what is good for honest critical reporting of those in power.

Hear, hear!....for the most part.

Actually, don't we have more of a "regulated availability" market as opposed to a "free" market? Not everything the American people want is available to them, and thank God for that, too. The question in my mind has become, 'How much regulation is too much?'.

I think we've about reached that point in a whole lot of areas.

the director
09-19-2011, 01:20 PM
This is the problem with the "free market is always best" ideology. It's the free market, and it is the response to consumer demand that has created the low quality of American news. People seem to think that the free market will always produce the "best" outcomes, but the free market has produced low quality entertainment "news", it has created Jersey Shore and American Idol, it has created countless shows, movies, and music videos that are absolutely devoid of anything that could be considered values or morals.

All of the awful garbage spewed out through the media that people worry will erode traditional values is a product of this free market driven industry, giving people what they want, which happens to be the "edgy" "controversial" and "over the top".

There are times, many times, when "what is good for business" doesn't match up with what is good in other areas. For example, in the media, what is good for business doesn't always match with what is good for values, doesn't always match what is good for intellectual growth, doesn't always match what is good for honest critical reporting of those in power.

I honestly don't know how you got that out of what I responded with, but alrighty.

That same entertainment you deride is one of the the best ambassadors America has to the world. No matter what country I've been in, I can play a disc of a popular American pop star and it is like an international credit card.

What is dead-brained and low-brow to you is quality entertainment to others, it is all about perspective. And the beauty of the "shitty" free-market system is that if there is a large enough demand for a product, someone will produce it for you to make a profit. Capitalism and a freer market is the only system proven to consistently be able to do so.

For example: I had a sister in law who spent some time in Norway aka liberal utopia. She said the selection in the supermarkets was absolutely terrible. She was used to America, where she had a choice of several different types of bread, meats, etc. In Norway, one better like the national brand cause thats all one is going to get. The meat was so overpriced and of poor quality that no one ever bought it, it was almost like forced vegatarianism.

"Values" and "what is decent" is constantly being challenged by younger generations, and is all about perspective anyway. The older generations always claim that the younger generations are "soft" and "devoid of all values". It is nothing more than a generational gap.

There is deep, long-winded analysis available. I know because one of my Army friends would download conservative radio broadcasts from around the country and play them during his lunch break, in fact if he didn't get to listen to them he would be pretty grumpy for the rest of the day.

I get the impression you want to sit on your couch, flip it to a news channel, and be fed exactly what you want. I'm not surprised you are disappointed.

Wei Wu Wei
09-19-2011, 04:20 PM
Hear, hear!....for the most part.

Actually, don't we have more of a "regulated availability" market as opposed to a "free" market? Not everything the American people want is available to them, and thank God for that, too. The question in my mind has become, 'How much regulation is too much?'.

I think we've about reached that point in a whole lot of areas.

I don't think the answer is government-regulated information, that doesn't amount to much more than propaganda.

Rather, there should be increases in funding for public, community-run media. The funding should be guaranteed and out of the hands of politicians. A certain percentage of funds could go towards supporting public broadcasting and community broadcasting, under the stipulation that these funds cannot be taken away.

This way, even if these independent, non-commercial press organizations begin reporting on stories that the government doesn't like, politicians of any political party cannot threaten to withhold their money. This will prevent government officials using the purse-strings to influence the content of independent media.

If we look at countries ranked by their level of democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#2010_rankings
we see that the top 5 nations also happen to be the nations who spend the highest percentage of their budgets funding public broadcasting.

Currently, community broadcasting is funded by donations, which is good and should continue, but giving them more money will open up more space for independent press to thrive.

Make money available, without fear of content being based on who is in office, and we can get real, legitimate reporting. There are many journalists out there who really want to report on important stories with depth, but if that's not what the market is asking for, they will not be able to do it.

If we believe in the first amendment, and the true freedom of the press, we need to make this freedom outside of the realm of market demands, as well as outside of the realm of political winds. Unconditional public funding of community-based media is one way to do this.

Wei Wu Wei
09-19-2011, 04:33 PM
I honestly don't know how you got that out of what I responded with, but alrighty.

That same entertainment you deride is one of the the best ambassadors America has to the world. No matter what country I've been in, I can play a disc of a popular American pop star and it is like an international credit card.

What is dead-brained and low-brow to you is quality entertainment to others, it is all about perspective. And the beauty of the "shitty" free-market system is that if there is a large enough demand for a product, someone will produce it for you to make a profit. Capitalism and a freer market is the only system proven to consistently be able to do so.

The free market has been able to create many innovations, I'm not denying that. Particularly in the realm of technology and convenience, things like computers and cell phones have ushered in an era of convenience that previous generations could never have dreamed of.

All I am saying is that it doesn't produce the best results in every area across the board.


What's best for MTV and their ratings isn't always what's best for the teenagers who consume it daily.

What's best for a casino isn't what's best for gamblers, obviously.

The free market has produced a news media that is always available, always fast, easy to understand, and immensely entertaining, but it has also produced the many drawbacks I described above.


For example: I had a sister in law who spent some time in Norway aka liberal utopia. She said the selection in the supermarkets was absolutely terrible. She was used to America, where she had a choice of several different types of bread, meats, etc. In Norway, one better like the national brand cause thats all one is going to get. The meat was so overpriced and of poor quality that no one ever bought it, it was almost like forced vegatarianism.

I'm not talking about banning corporate media and replacing it with government-run media. I'm saying that corporate media alone has many drawbacks and it would be good to encourage a space outside of the free market where independent media can thrive.

I think this would even improve corporate media, because if independent media were more available, corporate media might be held to a higher standard.


"Values" and "what is decent" is constantly being challenged by younger generations, and is all about perspective anyway. The older generations always claim that the younger generations are "soft" and "devoid of all values". It is nothing more than a generational gap.

Teenagers will gladly tell you that Jersey Shore is garbage, but that they love it anyway. I don't consider myself an old man but if you can tell me the artistic, cultural, or informative value of Snookie then I'll admit I'm just over the hill.

the director
09-19-2011, 05:40 PM
The free market has been able to create many innovations, I'm not denying that. Particularly in the realm of technology and convenience, things like computers and cell phones have ushered in an era of convenience that previous generations could never have dreamed of.

All I am saying is that it doesn't produce the best results in every area across the board.

What's best for MTV and their ratings isn't always what's best for the teenagers who consume it daily.

What's best for a casino isn't what's best for gamblers, obviously.

The free market has produced a news media that is always available, always fast, easy to understand, and immensely entertaining, but it has also produced the many drawbacks I described above.

I'm not talking about banning corporate media and replacing it with government-run media. I'm saying that corporate media alone has many drawbacks and it would be good to encourage a space outside of the free market where independent media can thrive.

I think this would even improve corporate media, because if independent media were more available, corporate media might be held to a higher standard.

Teenagers will gladly tell you that Jersey Shore is garbage, but that they love it anyway. I don't consider myself an old man but if you can tell me the artistic, cultural, or informative value of Snookie then I'll admit I'm just over the hill.

And I'm not saying that a pure free market is the best way either, Enron and Worldcom prove that a reasonable amount of oversight is needed. Not an elegant way of saying this, but the system isn't broken, it is the shitheads who ruin it for those who are honest hard workers.

In my opinion there is a difference between a product that is marketed as safe for kids that turns out to be toxic, and MTV where there is no illusion that the network is anything but sex packaged in a PG-13 way. At a certain point we have to turn to the parents and go "this is where your job starts."

Independent media does exist, you are using it right now. The internets is a very cheap and easy way to disseminate a message to people around the world. As technology advances and continues to advance, internet access is spreading exponentially. At this point one has to wonder if money being spent on a shoddy radio show is worth it, or if that money would be better spent upgrading internet and power infrastructure to keep costs low and allow business expansion.

Conservatives are able to support an entire news network and several radio programs through advertising, merchandising, and licensing, why can't independents and democrats do the same? Why should I be asked to subsidize a failing or unpopular program? If Current TV can't stand on its own two feet, then it deserves to fold.

the director
09-19-2011, 05:45 PM
Teenagers will gladly tell you that Jersey Shore is garbage, but that they love it anyway. I don't consider myself an old man but if you can tell me the artistic, cultural, or informative value of Snookie then I'll admit I'm just over the hill.

Haha, perhaps you are.

I don't know much about the cultural benefits of Snookie, but I do know that there are a lot of Americans who think football is nothing but meatheads bashing into each other for three hours in a primative spectacle that is on par with Roman Gladiators.

Other Americans say football embodies a physical and mental struggle that teaches honesty, hard work, team work, and other very positive life lessons.

Perspective.

Wei Wu Wei
09-19-2011, 06:46 PM
And I'm not saying that a pure free market is the best way either, Enron and Worldcom prove that a reasonable amount of oversight is needed. Not an elegant way of saying this, but the system isn't broken, it is the shitheads who ruin it for those who are honest hard workers.

I think this personalizes the problem too much. The broken parts of the system are just as integral to it as the parts of the system that produce good results. I think this is a bit more appropriate for another discussion though.


In my opinion there is a difference between a product that is marketed as safe for kids that turns out to be toxic, and MTV where there is no illusion that the network is anything but sex packaged in a PG-13 way. At a certain point we have to turn to the parents and go "this is where your job starts."

I agree, I'm not saying we should shut down or regulate MTV, I'm just using it as an example of how the free market responding to demand can often times produce garbage.

I hear conservatives who are upset about traditional values being undermined in the media, well all of the crap that is out there is simply responding to the market.



Independent media does exist, you are using it right now. The internets is a very cheap and easy way to disseminate a message to people around the world. As technology advances and continues to advance, internet access is spreading exponentially. At this point one has to wonder if money being spent on a shoddy radio show is worth it, or if that money would be better spent upgrading internet and power infrastructure to keep costs low and allow business expansion.

The internet is just the medium of expression, just the highway, we should be support independent institutions of journalism.

Journalism that is funded by advertisers must put ratings over content quality, so we should preserve a space for non-commercial media.
Journalism that is controlled by the government puts the official message over truth, and changes with the whims of who is in power, so we should make sure funding cannot be withheld by unhappy politicians.





Conservatives are able to support an entire news network and several radio programs through advertising, merchandising, and licensing, why can't independents and democrats do the same?

Because those networks and radio programs are more concerned with entertainment, shock value, and high ratings than they are with in depth discussions. I listen to Rush and Hannity, I know what that is about. If you enjoy it, then by all means keep listening to it, but I'm talking about real informative journalism.


Why should I be asked to subsidize a failing or unpopular program? If Current TV can't stand on its own two feet, then it deserves to fold.

I'm not talking about current TV or MSNBC, I'm talking about community media.

You should be asked to subsidize independent press because it is a constitutional duty to maintain freedom of the press. Only free independent media will hold the elite's feet to the fire, and the free market has spoken about quality journalism: it doesn't want to support it.

If the free market decides that quality journalism isn't going to be produced, the government doesn't have a role or right to dictate the content of their broadcasts, however it can encourage a space where quality journalism can thrive on it's own.

I consume corporate "news", right wing radio, as well as non-commercial community radio, and the difference is as clear as day. Also, I hear FAR more criticisms of the Obama administration on community media than I ever do on MSNBC.

the director
09-19-2011, 08:18 PM
I think this personalizes the problem too much. The broken parts of the system are just as integral to it as the parts of the system that produce good results. I think this is a bit more appropriate for another discussion though.

Probably another discussion, agreed.



I agree, I'm not saying we should shut down or regulate MTV, I'm just using it as an example of how the free market responding to demand can often times produce garbage.

I hear conservatives who are upset about traditional values being undermined in the media, well all of the crap that is out there is simply responding to the market.

Meh, again quality is all about perspective. I happen to think some music videos are pretty kick ass and enjoy them.

I think you are talking about the lowest common demoninator, producing content that is appealing to the largest audience for the most viewership and highest profits.

There is a lot of filler that is baseline and not of high quality, but that should be expected. Not every song is Beethoven's 9th Symphony, not every news story will win a Pulitzer, and not every movie wins an Oscar.



The internet is just the medium of expression, just the highway, we should be support independent institutions of journalism.

Journalism that is funded by advertisers must put ratings over content quality, so we should preserve a space for non-commercial media.

Journalism that is controlled by the government puts the official message over truth, and changes with the whims of who is in power, so we should make sure funding cannot be withheld by unhappy politicians.

Because those networks and radio programs are more concerned with entertainment, shock value, and high ratings than they are with in depth discussions. I listen to Rush and Hannity, I know what that is about. If you enjoy it, then by all means keep listening to it, but I'm talking about real informative journalism.

The internet offers a means for journalists to publish their content at low-cost, which is replacing the need for government subsidized medium. A basic website and host is unbelievably cheap, and with Google Ads or donations or charged content one can easily sustain their hobby or even create a living from it. The owners of this website is a great example.

I'm going to use another example. Let's say one is a supporter of small independent artists who produce knick knacks and whatnot. An honorable life choice and legitimate means to earn an income, but a small artist should have no reasonable expectation of being able to afford a prime business location in downtown Americaville.

What you are suggesting is the Government produce an abomination of programs designed to provide loans and grants to smalltime artists to be able to afford a storefront and material. These programs then spawn a whole new set of government programs to ensure that their isn't fraud, that the money isn't being used to produce porn or whatever, and so on. Costs mount, balloon and get out of control.

I point the artist to ebay or an online storefront.


Because those networks and radio programs are more concerned with entertainment, shock value, and high ratings than they are with in depth discussions. I listen to Rush and Hannity, I know what that is about. If you enjoy it, then by all means keep listening to it, but I'm talking about real informative journalism.

Some people think Fox News is quality entertainment and real informative journalism. Some people do not think Rush is shock journalism, and are nodding their heads when he speaks. Some people do not think DailyKos is radical progressive, but rather is the "center", and that everything to the right of DailyKos is conservative.



I'm not talking about current TV or MSNBC, I'm talking about community media.

You should be asked to subsidize independent press because it is a constitutional duty to maintain freedom of the press. Only free independent media will hold the elite's feet to the fire, and the free market has spoken about quality journalism: it doesn't want to support it.

If the free market decides that quality journalism isn't going to be produced, the government doesn't have a role or right to dictate the content of their broadcasts, however it can encourage a space where quality journalism can thrive on it's own.

I consume corporate "news", right wing radio, as well as non-commercial community radio, and the difference is as clear as day. Also, I hear FAR more criticisms of the Obama administration on community media than I ever do on MSNBC.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. Personally, I've wrestled with what you are typing out and like you have gotten frustrated at the lowest common denominator in media/entertainment in general. I do wish there was a more active and prominent independent and non-manipulative journalist presence, but that is just as much the journalist's fault as it is the corportations/government and American people's.

My favorite example is Bush vacations versus Obama vacations. When Bush was president, everytime he took a vacation the MSM went apeshit and accused Bush of shirking his responsiblities. Conservatives defended Bush.

When Obama started taking vacations, the roles reversed. The MSM shrugged their shoulders, and conservatives started criticizing him for it relentlessly.

The real, no shit, facts on the ground? Presidents never really take vacations, the job is fucking stressful, and unless we collectively want a commander in chief breaking down, cut the guy some slack no matter if he is Republican or Democrat. It isn't like if a crisis happens Obama is going to be like "I'm on vacation, I'll handle it when I get back, go bug Biden." Obama is just as effective in the Oval Office as he is on the golf course. Bush was just as effective in the White House as he was in Texas. It is all politicking bullshit by politicians, and the media eats it up for ratings. It is infuriating.

I have to remember not everyone is into politics as I am. This website has a little over a thousand active users, a decent hollywood star has hundreds of thousands of "likes" on facebook and followers on Twitter. Brad Pitt has more influence over an election than a really smart, independent political analyst with a PHD. Getting angry at that is getting angry at American society, but it is still tough for me to accept.

NJCardFan
09-20-2011, 03:53 PM
Teenagers will gladly tell you that Jersey Shore is garbage, but that they love it anyway. I don't consider myself an old man but if you can tell me the artistic, cultural, or informative value of Snookie then I'll admit I'm just over the hill.

Wei, I still think you're a dick but you and I are in complete, 100% agreement on this.