The Smiley Smile Message Board

(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/02/barack-obama-disheartened-AP-640x480.jpg)

The world watches terrorism and terrorists thrive... and the once-leader of the free world says?


"Uhhh.... christians did stuff too.... uh... like a thousand years ago.... uh.. right?  you with me..."



 :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

worst leader EVER.   News Flash... it's 2015 Barrack!  But, hey, you get those Christian d*ckheads you d*ckhead!!!   :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

It's just sad. I hope things get better, but with people like this in charge, I don't see it.

(http://cdn.redalertpolitics.com/files/2015/02/obama-vox.jpg)

I've never expressed much love and support for this jive turkey -- he's a dud and an azzhoel -- but I actually might feel bad for him on this.

I think he's the forever-college-boy, home for the holidays -- hoping to educate his "ignorant family" on how smart he got after his first semester at a "big" school.  I've heard many fools try to say the same thing -- but he's never had much experience speaking outside of his frat house circle jerk.

Some stuff shouldn't leave the dorm room bake-off.  The reason why he's a royal azzhoel, is because rather than be embarrassed, he goes on VOX.com and says the media is over inflating the whole "terrorist thing."

Barrack meet Brian.  Say what you want about Brian Williams... at least he had the balls to admit he was wrong.  It's very lkely that Our President is much, much dumber.   :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

(http://dailysurge.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/brian-williams.jpeg)

The reason Brian Williams admitted he was wrong was because he got caught. Lets see what has Obama done as president: He's ended two wars, he's helping to supply health care for people that couldn't afford it before, the economy has improved etc. If you hate the guy just say so but I think in twenty years when historians look back on this administration it will look pretty good. Oh yeah, so far there has been no terrorist attack on US soil since Obama has been president. You do remember when over 3000 americans were killed during the Bush/Cheney reign don't you? Yeah, Obama, what a fucking loser.

Still nowhere near as bad or embarrassing as Tony Abbott.... Consider yourself lucky

You cannot be serious?

Hi Gerry,

Yes, Obama is a fcking loser.  He hasn't ended two wars -- he's retreated.  And in the process, he's created more world conflict, emboldened and solidified the enemy and generated a climate for far worse, future wars.  FAR worse Gerry.  This is what Clinton did (to a far lesser degree) which led to the aforementioned 3000 Americans dead on Bush/Cheney's reign.  And wait till Obama gets his way with Iran... and they get the "bomb."  Far worse Gerald, far worse.

Obama isn't getting people Healthcare who previously couldn't afford it, he's simple made Healthcare more expensive for those who already had it, Gerry.  And causing many to lose their coverage.  And in the process this FCKING LOSER created a crony Capitalist system of "you pay me (Demorat Party) and we'll give you a waiver."

The same crony Capitalist system is now in place for the interweb via Net Neutrality, by the way.

Lastly, you said there hasn't been a terrorist attack on US soil since this butthoel took office?  Where the fck have you been Gerry? -- pardon my French.  :-D

I don't like to repost the glories of stupid hateful evil aszhoels, so you can Google the images yourself Gerry (https://www.google.com/search?q=boston+marathon+bombing&client=opera&hs=RTO&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=gojwVKC_AZOxyQSXqIGQDw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1305&bih=705#imgdii=_).
(http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/national/rejectterror1.jpg)
(http://media2.wxyz.com/photo/2014/04/02/16x9/4_dead__14_injured_in_Fort_Hood_shooting_1474460000_3953186_ver1.0_640_480.jpg)



Relabeling a terrorist attack "work place violence" may work on the "dim and easily entertained," but not everyone's gonna clap along and grin Gerry.

Saying Christians did this 1,000 years ago, might make some knuckle-dragging, high school low-watts think you're well-read -- but if you're the President, in the middle of a FCKING war, it sorta makes you look like a FCKING stupid piece of sh-t!!!

 :lol

While I neither agree or disagree with some or all of your posts, I have to wonder, why do you come here to post this stuff? Have you no other outlet to unleash your political views? Just to be clear, I am only asking because I am curious, not to start sh*t.

Definitely in need of a blow job.  >:D

Bean Bag is, in a way "raising the bar" for people to "pay attention"'to what is going on.  The States, for all its' tech advancement has third world speed internet. 

Not long ago did we find out that we've all been legally cyber stalked.  That is not unimportant.  And The Sandbox can be just the place for this.
Those Bean Bag posted photos are shocking, and we should continue to be shocked. One of two might dial it back a bit, though...it would be more effective... ;)

Without an internet, in a free society, we won't have a message board to freely discuss the music we clearly and dearly love... :love

All good in that department!!  ;D

Perfectly valid question. Why here?  Why not. As filledeplage said, I don't think people realize what's going on. We are in the midst of something very scary. Liberty is being given away.  Barrack Obama is a tryannt. It not about politics or Parties. It's about you me and whoever else sayin "wait, who is his aszhole and what is he doing?"

The aszhole is obama, of course, not me. I would never take people's freedoms away.

What two wars did Obama end? Iraq? Afghanistan? The war on drugs? The war on the federal government spying on the entire American population and most of the world? There's still troops in Iraq AND Afghanistan, and there will be for the foreseeable future. He's done jackshit to end the war on drugs, even though that war hits closer to home and affects more Americans than both of the wars we're fighting in the sandbox known as the middle east. And speaking of the "terrorist fighting" wars, didn't Obummer promise before his first term as president to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay? How's that going for him? Guantanamo Bay is no longer a prison, right?

And while we're at it, please, explain how forcing every American to have to pay a portion of their income to for-profit corporations is considered "supplying healthcare". How does making everyone cough up cash for "insurance" make healthcare better? Wouldn't training more doctors & nurses and making medical equipment more affordable be better than forcing everybody to have "insurance"? My mom recently got hit head on by some guy driving over the speed limit, with bald tires, in the rain. You know how much her medical insurance wants to pay since the guy had bare minimum car insurance? She currently has over $750,000 worth of medical bills and her insurance company is doing every single thing they can to get out of paying her bills. Obamacare sure works, don't it?

What the hell is insurance, anyway? All I know is that if everybody in the country needed an appendectomy, even with insurance, every single person would be forced to cough up 10s or hundreds of thousands of dollars, regardless of if they have insurance or not.


You have to be blind to believe the economy has improved at all. The president has done NOTHING, literally NOTHING to bring jobs back to the US of A. And the debt the bloated federal government has created has done nothing but go up since the 44th president took office. But he still has to take his several million dollar costing Hawaiian vacation every year, he deserves that, right? Since every American person can take a multi-million dollar vacation paid for by the taxpayers, the president should be able to as well, right? There aren't any homeless pr hungry Americans in this country while the president spends millions of dollars to go play golf in Hawaii every year, right? The president, his family, and the secret service definitely deserve to go spend time in Hawaii on the taxpayers' dime when more people get food stamps than every have before, right? You totally couldn't buy more books or hire more teachers to educate the dumb ass masses of this country with that money. Look up how much money it costs to fly Air Force One. Then multiply that times a Hawaiian vacation (and then some), every single year he's been in office. Oh, he totally deserves to squander away that much of the taxpayers' money to get him and his family away from the mess in Washington he willfully waded into.


And you do realize the September 11, 2001 attacks happened in the first year of George W's presidency, right? But hey, lets just ignore the last 7 years of Dubyar's presidency because it makes your argument and Obammer look better.




If anything, once people get over the "it's racist if I say anything bad about the president" thing, they'll realize what a pile of sh!t Barrack Hussein Obama has been, and will realize the choices made by his administration have led to the "beginning of the end" and the United States Of America as we know it are about to change forever, and in a bad way.


Bottom line is the the people of this country have elected a leader who has continued to allow the mass spying on EVERY. SINGLE. CITIZEN. regardless of if they are guilty, or even suspected of being guilty. And that's a fuckin' no no. That's a big fuckin' no no. That goes against every single thing this country was founded on. And sadly the people are willing to just sit by idly while the feds just keep taking more and more of your freedoms away in the name of "national security."

How anybody can trust a government that has files tracking every single conversation you and your family have had on your cellphones and every single thing you've ever looked up on the internet, but somehow can't find a plane that "disappeared" with over 200 people onboard, is beyond me.

Your government can kill what they consider a "terrorist" (and probably multiple collateral casualties) in a country they aren't allowed to have troops in, from several thousand miles away, but can't find an airplane full of people when it disappears off the radar.

Is that not f***ed up to you? Are you just not paying attention?

Oh come on, even if the rest of the Liberals aren't bad, you have to at least admit Abbott is a d*ckhead that consistently embarrasses himself.

It would be nearly impossible to reply to all of your bullshit because I actually have a life. It's the whole Fox news?Roger Ailes/Rupert Murdoch skreed. God, things were so much better when the republicans were in charge. But you're convinced that this guy is evil personified . Does it bother you at all that right wing republicans are almost always on the wrong side of history?(now you can look up those few times when they weren't) When someone says it's not about  a certain party or president then you know that's exactly what it's about.

Fox News has thrown down the gauntlet as far as media and I really never paid much attention until recently.  O'Reilly did a lot of work in a local market so I find his work interesting, because of his background.  Greta Van Sustern is very credible, as well as Kelly and Judge Piro. All lawyers with excellent analyses. They do their homework. Even Gerardo Rivera, also a lawyer, makes much more sense than the talking heads of the WH press corps. They take the news a step further because they can tell you the legal impact down the line.  At least there is some balance to the sanitized magazine-journalism of the prime networks.

They have more guests from both sides, than any other network. And, that is whether they agree with them or not. Both sides get their time on the air.  There will be plenty of Dems voting for the other side in the next election, until the party becomes reasonable again. The Dems have hadno tolerance for "moderates or conservatives" in the Dem party.  We are Americans, first. The party affiliation comes second. And policies have to change.

This looks like a repeat of WWII genocide, except the leaders are hiding behind political correctness.

We have a spin-control press, who have their hands tied.  I always have some European news going because we need to be informed, and they are closer to the situation. The sight of those antiquities being destroyed was something else.  Who destroys ancient art? And we are living in an era of mass genocide. It is essential to be informed. And the political party is of no consequence when it comes to being bombed, and sitting officials attempt to parse out what is really going on? I don't think so.

There is not a truly safe haven on this planet, unfortunately.  JMHO

Hey, Gerry, you ever heard of something called "psychological projection"?

Your whole "It would be nearly impossible to reply to all of your bullshit because I actually have a life." makes me realize you lead a poor, sad life. Don't worry, I'm praying for you. Just remember that even the lowly caterpillar turns into a beautiful butterfly. Either that or gets eaten by a bird. You'll probably be the latter, but keep reaching for those stars.

A little logic certainly does make the average blind liberal or conservative flounder for a reasonable response. Don't worry, there's no malice from me towards people like you, mostly pity. Much, much pity.


Your response is very well thought out and definitely does not make my hastily written response to your blind liberalism sound better than it actually does.  :lol

You just keep being that one of many lemmings that follows that first lemming over the edge of a cliff, and I'll be the one that stops and questions both liberal and conservative leaders that have their personal interests in mind over those of the majority of American people.


I really pity you, and similar-minded people, for thinking that Obama will solve all of our problems just because of his party affiliation.


Just remember: The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $2.37 billion per day since September 30, 2012. And that there was no such thing as "ISIS" before Obama started his second 4 year term in office. But that's all Republicans' faults, right?


Can't wait to read your very well thought out response in the next day or two!!


Love & Pity,

stack-o-tracks

Perhaps if the seeds of hate were no planted by successive invasions by Bush etc..

Wait. According to Obama the seeds of hate were sown during the Crusades, man. C'mon!  :-D

But seriously... What year did Iran take those US hostages?   ;D. The blame-Bush meme has worn thin.  Talk about seeds of hate!  Most importantly, it doesn't hold up to intellectual scrutiny.

This war is not about Bush. Our current disaster of a President fixed his wagon to that very limiting brand of hatred, hoping there were enough folks out there with access to MTV and a bong to get him by. While he was right, the US does have a lot uninformed people who know how to vote, dead or alive, he's wrong about everything else.

And he's dangerous.  The seeds that Obama has sown WILL result in some very bad things. It already has. Try to see what's really going on.

Have you ever even watched FoxNews?  I'm not trying to convert you or anything silly, but it's the only place on TV were you get left AND right opinions together. It might help you form your own opinions, which are always more honest and weighty than the bumper sticker variety.  Try the Five. It's on at 5pm. It's fun and relaxed and ideas get bounced around.

And to answer some of your comments, NO, the Republicans are not the answer sadly. It's never that easy. Well, except,it's almost 100% certain now that the Democrats are just a flat out criminal organization. They use extortion better than the mob. It's really sad what happened to that party.

The Republicans are not the complete answer. I agree.  Last night I watched the CPAC speeches and find that  while the Rep. Party might be better with national defense strategies, they are still unacceptably intolerant.  But we won't have a nation, if it isn't defended.  There was an interesting article on humanrightswatch written in 2004 about the Iraq invasion and why it didn't align with human rights bases because the genocide was not "imminent" and in the past, which lacked credibility for me.  

The WMD thesis (weapons of mass destruction,) although disclaimed by some, might have been proven correct with more info concerning the more recent brand of genocide.  What was interesting in this article is that Bush 2 wanted Saddam tried in his own country, instead of the ICC, International Criminal Court, in The Hague, for crimes against humanity, which may have been a huge mistake.  It would have brought more transparency worldwide and perhaps given more unity globally to deal with the current problems we all face.  

This is just the "current face" of the Dems, in power now.  They don't represent moderate or more conservative Democrats (who do exist!) and who have been sending a message to the liberal "radical" or "radicalized" democrats. (pun intended) and who are more socialists in philosophy than anything else.

There is always reasonable policy somewhere in the middle.  And who arent "parsing" words to are trying to "tell the truth slowly" as one departed White House press guy Jay Carney put it, which he may have borrowed from Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry.  I think we all have a responsibility to be as informed as we can, and watch all kinds of reports, because of the heavy censorship out there.

I'm going to watch some of the CPAC speeches tonight probably, haven't had the chance yet.

I agree, the Democrat party has variation.  But what people have been calling "the base" of that party (whether it's the base or not, is debatable) has been the radical component.  Progressives.  Liberals.  Secular-Progressives.  Socialists.  Communists.  Radical Environmentalists.  All of them are anti-Constitution and anti-Bill Of Rights.  And anti-West.  They call terrorists "freedom fighters" and that sort of sh-t.  Blaming the West (or the fcking Crusades!!  :-D) or the advancement of the human condition for all the world's ills.  Just absolute, irrational sickos.

I don't think they're the "base" per se.  Nevertheless, they're the motivated.  Which makes them "the base" for all intents and purposes.  And they've browbeaten their fellow Democrats into submission.  Actually, let's take a page from world events -- just like Islamic-Fascists don't represent all of Islam.  Democrat-Fascists don't represent all the Democrat Party.  We just need moderate Dems to realize that -- speak up and take their Party back.

Case in point -- gun control.  Most American, right or left, believe in the 2nd Amendment.  The radicals can't get that through.  And they're also starting to lose the country's heart on the abortion argument.  I think more and more people (pretty sure it's now a majority) are seeing abortion as extreme.  They're surely not seeing it as some "liberating" act for women.  They've lost that, I think.

I would bet, that after Obama, Reid and Pelosi's reign of terror, more and more Americans are not identifying themselves with these angry Leftists.  The radicals have gone too far.  They're not winning people's hearts and minds.  There's no connection.  No bond.  No reality.

As a result, if the Republican base can rally behind a good Conservative/Libertarian candidate they should, not only beat the big-money candidates like Jeb Bush -- but also go on to an easy win in '16.  I don't see any opposition.  Hillary's a hack and no one likes her... not even her husband.  And I don't think the country wants another celebrity President like Blow-bama.  

Bean bag - Obama had everyone scratching their heads over that Crusades thing.  We aren't in the Middle Ages.  They are using Middle Age philosophy and barbarism with 21st century tech.  It makes is pretty transparent whose side he is on. 

What concerns me about the 3 in the dynasty, is that none has gone to law school.  That means he can't kick everyone out of the office, and read the cases, all by himself,  and the International treaties and and laws and make an independent decision.  He has to rely on a hired lawyer to think for him and be an interpreter for what the law is.  Bush 2 was clear about his dislike for lawyers.  And, I think he had contempt for what he didn't understand.

He didn't want ICC to decide Saddam's fate and make the process transparent.  And, it doesn't mean you are a better leader with law school, but if you are a lawyer ( as the president is, you know exactly the wrong you are doing, by trying to change the bill of rights and not "preserve, protect and defend the US constitution.")  A lawyer can't plead ignorance.  Or blame his legal advisor team. Because he or she knows or should what he is supposed to do. My crystal ball says he will be judged very harshly for going too far beyond his powers after he is gone.  He might have been fine for one term.  Two was too much.

This eavesdropping is too much.  On low risk good citizens. 

Bush 2 was too cozy with certain world leaders, acted or failed to act responsibly and humanely, with Hurricane Katrina...and maybe we've had enough of the "dynasties," including Hillary... ;)

why did i come back to the board :'(

No, no, stay.  We missed you! (http://i.imdb.com/Photos/CMSIcons/emoticons/love/love10.gif)

 :lol

I feel the same way about my own decision...

It's like being inside a Randy Newman song

 :'(

You're hurting my feelings.  Is this conversation beneath all of you?  

I don't think there's much of a conversation to be had. It's more just like "I intensely dislike Obama and I'mma tell you about it."
Maybe if you held back a bit and instead presented a logical argument for why something is bad/wrong, there would be a reasonable conversation.

No it is all about perception, no perception is wrong or right.

How can anyone be take seriously when they reference FoxNews?

How can anybody take it seriously when someone says that you can get a "left" opinion anywhere in US mainstream media, let alone Fox news?

Greta Van Susteren - legal analyst for CNN from 1994-2002 listed by Forbes in 2012 as one of the 100th most powerful women in the world. Former adjunct faculty at Georgetown Law.  
Not credible?

Megyn  Kelly - Kelly File - listed by Time as one of the 100th most influential people in 2014. Albany Law, litigation experience, covered the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Alito, Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan.  Not credible?

Judge Jeanine Pirro - district court judge, first female judge in Westchester, NY, District Attorney, 12 years. Guest hosted Larry King Live, Joy Behar, Geraldo show. Not credible?

Geraldo Rivera - attorney, reporter Columbia post-grad in Journalism, NYPD investigator, frequent atty. for Puerto Rican activist group, the Young Lords, who occupied an East Harlem church in in. 1969.  ABC's Good Night America, then correspondent for Good Morning America 1975-77, investigated Elvis' prescription drug records, causing Tennessee to revoke the medical license of Dr. George Nichopoulos for overprescribing. Plenty more can be found.  

Took a pay cut to work for Fox after 9/11. Delivered the keynote at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute's 2008 Public Policy conference.  Not credible?

This is The Sandbox.  

You may not like them, and don't have to, but it is hard to argue that they do not have highly credentialed people working for them.  

Well, as people who have been trained by elite institutions, and have worked as dutiful members of power institutions and power structures, that does make them perfect candidates for a job of journalism, which requires dutiful obedience to dominating power structures. As far as any of them being credible, I'd have to say no. I don't particularly think any agent of power is credible.

Glad to have both of you guys on the board! :)

Geraldo Rivera  - dutiful obedience?

You might want to fact-check... ;)

Rivera is probably the most dutifully obedient figure out of anybody you named. If you want to talk facts, please demonstrate one single instance where Rivera expressed any point of view ever that was remotely critical of the ruling ideology.

Rivera is kind of a classic case of textbook journalism: the case of the right-wing liberal journalist hired by an extremist reactionary right wing news outfit who is placed out front to perpetuate the myth that there is a balance of opinion, that the outfit is moderate, that they tolerate "different ideas," etc. In reality, these figures are marginally different from the rest of the journalists, and most of those differences are expressed on social issues rather than political/economic issues, and essentially work only to reinforce the status quo, which they do well since they are probably the outfit's best representative of the status quo.

Geraldo was fired after criticizing the journalistic integrity of ABC's Roone Arledge in 1985, for refusing to air a report on 20/20 by Syvia Chase concerning the relationship among Marilyn Monroe, JFK and RFK.  Hardly status quo.

Right wing? Classic textbook? He didn't start out to be a reporter. He worked for the National lawyers Guild, who were the first group to admit minorities.  These were labor oriented and regarded left wing as opposed to your contention that he is right wing, almost laughable.

You're entitled to your opinion. 

Time for O'Reilly!   ;)

Regardless of their credentials, they've all shown a bias in their reporting that is often I'll-informed and unprofessional for a journalist.  Opinion-based reporting isn't journalism.  It's editorializing and while that's fine, pretending your editorial is fact is not okay.  Also the network's treatment of any religion that isn't Christianity is just appalling.

That is exactly status quo - that is trivial tabloid nonsense.

In 1985, the United States was sponsoring what a former CIA director referred to as a terrorist campaign in Nicaragua. This is after several years of support of massive repression throughout Latin America - including a very violent military insurgence against the Catholic Church in El Salvador, an ongoing support of the scorched earth campaigns in Guatemala, all resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths. You had ongoing support of genocide in East Timor. By 1986, the U.S. was charged with terrorism by the World Court. You had a figure in power who was essentially selling himself as some kind of free market saviour who was really a statist reactionary who was largely protecting the needs of the ruling elite at the expense of the population. And here's Geraldo getting bothered about the sex lives of long dead politicians from twenty years earlier. The ruling elite must have been high-fiving each other over such wilful ignorance and complicit consensus by dutiful reporters like Geraldo.


I'm specifically talking about his work as a journalist. His record is proof positive that he certainly said what needed to be said when he took on the role as a reporter.

Chocolate Shake Man - the report on Monroe and the Kennedy brothers was not Geraldo's but his co-worker, Sylvia Chase's.  Geraldo challenged the network head because Arledge caved to the pressure, exerted on the network, politically, to shut down the story. 

If one doesn't have a spectrum of resources for news, you listen to one network.  Excluding one side or another frustrates the purpose of being more fully informed.  And, I think Geraldo's work is informed by his background, both from his education and his work defending marginalized groups.  I've only recently discovered that Fox does seem to have more guests, who are controversial, but allowed to speak their minds and debate whatever moderator is in the chair.  Then the "editorial" facet triggers.  But, first, with this format, you get to see the opposing opinion guests, first.  You get to see where they are coming from.

We have a free press.  Other nations don't like that.  They have state-run news. What is better? I'll take my chances with free market and boycott or not watch networks, whose sponsors and propaganda I don't care for. And, I often watch networks I don't agree with to know what they are thinking.

Genocide happening right now, is the issue, in my view.  That is the "clear and present danger" to the US.  That is what concerns me.  Today's policies concern me.  I can't fix the 1980's, even if it was shameful.

We know more, now, than in the 1980's that you mentioned, because of the internet. 

Yes, I read what you wrote and I responded accordingly. I'm not sure what gave you any other indication. Whatever the case, this has absolutely nothing to do with Geraldo doing anything to challenge the ruling ideology and thus, the status quo. Maybe he challenged the status quo at ABC, but that's meaningless. So did Norm Macdonald at NBC when he made too many O.J. jokes on Weekend Update on SNL. Nevertheless, I wouldn't call what Norm Macdonald was doing, journalism that criticized the ruling elite.


I'm really unclear on what you are saying here.


Then, again, please present one incident where Geraldo was remotely critical of the ruling ideology. And by that I mean a stance critical of the political system of the country as informed by the financial institutions.


Like on any network, you get a difference of opinion within an extremely narrow range of political thought. You essentially have representatives from the moderate-centre-right to the extreme reactionary right, which is the perfectly predictable consequence when you consider the narrow range of people who own the media (see below). Of course, you don't get voices from the political left since the political left has been all-but eliminated from the public sphere in the United States after decades of massive repression that included all sorts of illegal measures largely carried out by the repressive state apparatus. There's a very rich history of that, I'd be happy to go through it.

I will say, though, I've been happy to see Glenn Greenwald appearing on mainstream networks though most his left-wing opinion is usually curbed in favour of the Snowden discussion, which in and of itself is relevant and important.


You are right - people are absolutely free to express whatever views they want within that extremely narrow range of political thought. Nobody is ever told what to say, because any person who has opinions that come from the large space of repressed political ideas would either never get a job at a mainstream network, would never be invited to talk at a mainstream network, or would never even consider that their point of view would be considered "newsworthy" - since what counts as "news" is essentially the narrow political thought that I have already discussed.


Such as?


Well, of course, if a state is democratic then the state-run news would largely be under control of the population. In the United States, 90% of the media is controlled by 6 corporations. In other words, most of the news that you get in the U.S. is produced by an extraordinary small pocket of concentrated wealth and power, which is largely beholden to no one. On the one hand, state-run media has the potential for being democratic (though not saying that it works out that way); while the type of media that you support is always totalitarian in structure. Again, what you have is most of the media being controlled by a few people - that is textbook totalitarianism.


There is exactly nothing "free market" about the U.S. mainstream media. It is merely an expression of an extremely small minority of concentrated wealth and power.


I try and stay away from this line of thinking - the culture tends to turn individuals with real emotions, concerns, etc. into nothing more than consumers that can be exploited to buy things. In a world where we are not people but consumers, we are indoctrinated into thinking that the best solutions are consumer decisions - "I won't buy your product; I'll buy someone else's" - this only works to continue the cycle that the social structure has set up for us in advance - and this de-humanization of the population, incidentally, is a really recent development in human history.


Sorry, you were the one that brought up the 80s and only to talk about Geraldo fighting for a story about politicians from the 60s. Yes, there are terrible things going on right now, I agree.


Not really. The internet is good if you know where to look, but the internet has a virtue of appearing that just because someone says something it's true. Or if it sounds true, then it must be true. The internet has really fostered a "ring of truth" belief system, which, to be honest, is why 90% of the hogwash that you read on page one of this thread is spoken as if it were gospel fact when it fact it is a load of crap, for the most part. Of course, because the corporate elite-run mainstream media is so dominating, and sets itself up as a legitimate source, the type of news you find online that has the "ring of truth" is that which reaffirms the point of view that has already been constructed by the mainstream media, or maybe takes that point of view a bit "further."

I would say this and I really mean it ; if you want an accurate, honest take on the news watch The Daily Show. I recently saw Jon Stewart debate Chris Wallace and Wallace looked like a deer in the headlights . Stewart is very smart and he can defend his positions.

It's sad that someone would believe The Daily Show to be honest, accurate or even "news."  But if you don't have any fiber in your mental diet -- candy and sludge seems like fiber.  You're not the only one -- I have liberal family members who say the same thing.  They're seem like petty little kids to me when discussing politics -- even though they're older.  They're silly.

It's sad because I know I can't reach them.  They're brainwashed teens, mentally speaking.  Simply put... I listen to hardcore, unafraid right-wing conservative radio, mostly.  It's unafraid, because they're not hiding who they are.  They tell me.  And they analyze what stupid liberals say.  And they say why it's stupid.  They don't tell what to think like liberal media types -- they reaffirm what I know to be true.  There's a difference, but it's likely to escape people.  They don't do quick sound bites and stare at the camera waiting for a laugh.  Or have comedy writers coming up with funny remarks.  There's not an sense of mob thought.  It's individual.  Again, big difference.

There's nothing to be ashamed of when you're confident in your beliefs and confident in the truth and facts.  But there's a lot of people out there who need to be told how to feel, I suppose.  Feel is the operative word.  Since learning to think is work.  It is... but it's not if you listen to yourself.

If you're talking about the ENTIRE dinosaur, lame-stream Left Wing Media -- then yes.. you are correct.  But you're not, I suppose.  You live in a Bizzaro World to me Rocky!  Your sky is my ground.  My ground is your sky.  Cars fly in your world and planes drive.  It's koo-koo cocoanuts!  :lol

True... but right/wrong isn't always up to one's own perception.  There is a world of natural law and physics outside of one's perception.  Some people actually do drop turds when they speak.  Hence this thread.

I did that Bubbles.  Page one, first post!  C'mon man!

Then, I aptly expressed in my subsequent posts why it was in fact another TURD dropped by a jive turkey, crap-mouthed President (In case it wasn't obvious).  In short, bringing up the Crusades is fine for debating around the kitchen table (or dorm room bakeoff) but when you're the Prez, setting policy in the middle of a war, it sounds dumb.

Don't believe me?  Well, what if FDR said, "hey... this Hitler guy only popped up cuz of Woodrow Wilson's crappy deal after WWI."  While interesting and perhaps true... it would still be stupid to say in the middle of a war.  But hey... those Crusades.  Yeah... really.   :lol



Then someone dutifully defended the poop President and I shredded that to smithereens with the "logical argument" stuff you pretend to crave.  See Post #6.


And what's all this "I should hold back" stuff?  Perhaps you're actually referring to the responses of others.  Like "Definitely in need of a bl-w j-b."  And the "why did I come back here" stuff.  Are those the comments that leave little conversation to be had?  Frankly, I'm fine with them.  I too just like to have fun with all this.  There's others who will drain the fck out of this... BELIEVE ME.  Seriously... believe me.  Cough.  Cough.

That seems unnecessary to say that to me after I gave you a genuine answer to a question you asked, but okay.


I'm not.

I wish to hell I could have seen that. I love it when a guest on Fox News Sunday cuts Wallace short and tells it like it is!  ;D

Well, you did reduce my brilliant and hilarious commentary down to "I don't like Obama, and I'mma gonna tell you about it, duuuh."  I added the duh.

I find that to be lacking -- and it excuses a lot of the points I made.  I spent a good amount of time trying to come up with something catchy, funny, poignant and intellectually relevant.  I selected funny pictures to enhance my point and even worked in Brian Williams.  And when challenged on the merits of my characterization of Obama, I presented great points and pictures again to drive home the argument.  Logically.

So there is no reason that my work should result in people feeling that conversation was impaired based on your reasoning -- which was that I should back off and present logical arguments to enhance the conversation.

Now, as for backing off -- perhaps you're right.  I suppose pretending I don't know the answer would invite more discussion.  But then I feel like I'm leading people.  I just prefer to dump it out... kind of like Obama!  Just saddle up to the terlit... and dump it out.

You gotta Roll with the Punches.

If you really want us to take you seriously, don't be so condescending and stop using scatological euphemisms that make you sound like a five year old.  People like you just make me hate conservatives more than I already do.

That splitting of my post, I don't appreciate.  I spent some time fact checking to respond.  The point is that your assertion about Geraldo being right-wing appears from everything I've read a falsehood. I've followed his career for several decades.

And the Internet has enhanced and unveiled information that in the past has been largely concealed in the past.  Don't assume, please that people who are motivated to do deep research online are precluded from doing so.  

However, I was clearly not bringing up the 80's, to just bring them up, but the significanct and extremely courageous event of Geraldo's going out on a limb for a co-worker.  It was newsworthy in the US. And, demonstrating with readily ascertainable facts that the staff at FOX are highly credentialized.  

While the network staffing might be subject to political lines via the owners, Geraldo's past conduct suggests that they take their chances with him, because he is an activist above all.  Hate them if you like.  It is your perogative.

I'm not sure why. From my perspective, I have split up your post because I am taking what you are saying seriously. And when you take what someone says seriously you realize that every statement they make and every single point that they raise deserves a response. The truth is that, like myself, you make statements that require a great deal of unpacking. I really don't know how paying less attention to what you are saying by responding to your claims en masse is more respectful - as far as I'm concerned it's less respectful. Furthermore, it's the way that I converse dialogically and since I'm telling you that from my end it's a respectful way of engaging with your responses, I expect that you will likewise respect the way that I engage in a discussion.


Well, let's put it this way: if you are left-wing you are in opposition to capitalism - any kind of capitalism, be it free market capitalism, neo-liberal capitalism, state capitalism, etc. If you could demonstrate a single instance where Geraldo expressed a point of view as a reporter where he suggested or supported a view that called for an end to the private ownership of the nation's resources, then you might have a case that he isn't right-wing. But my assumption is that Geraldo, just like everyone else affiliated with a mainstream news organization is as right-wing as the rest of them.


Well, I'm not sure what the Internet has "unveiled" that hadn't been unveiled by other methods before the 1990s. I mean, yes, there was a lot obfuscation pre-Internet and it was always difficult to find out the truth, but there were always dedicated analysts out there and there were things like The Pentagon Papers where the government had frequently been forced to unveil information due to public pressure. I don't necessarily see the internet as doing anything special in terms of unveiling - what makes the Internet different is that information can circulate in a way that it didn't before. But like I said, the internet is mostly a junkyard. People aren't precluded from finding good information, but it's very difficult to find it and even then people have been so misinformed about what constitutes evidence, that they are very likely to accept whatever has the ring of truth.


But this had nothing to do with what I said, which is that Geraldo was obedient to dominating power structures. The example that you gave is where Geraldo's obedience to dominating power structures was clashing with his boss's obedience to dominating power structures, and that's why he got fired. But, in the scenario that you describe, neither person involved was doing anything other than being a subservient lap dog for power - they just saw their role as servants in different ways. And that's why, in my opinion, there was nothing "courageous" about what Geraldo did, at least not relatively speaking for a journalism.


Of course it was. That's because what counts as news in the US is anything that doesn't disrupt the status quo. That's why they love this kind of story - it is completely and utterly trivial and harmless.


As a reporter, Geraldo is the opposite of an activist - he's a lap dog who says exactly what his masters want him to say. His record is demonstrative of this, and you have still yet to provide me with a single example where he has been critical of the ruling ideology. I don't hate any of these people, though.

Reasonable minds can differ.  ;)

Of course. But you have yet to explain how you can differ. You have spoken several times to me about facts, and I have given several in this conversation that have been ignored while I have been chastised for dealing very directly with the points that are raised. So it is one thing to say, we differ, but it is another thing to explain why we differ. Again, for example, the issue of Geraldo being right-wing is a matter of fact, not opinion, so if I'm wrong, please demonstrate the facts. The idea that the US mainstream media is organized in a totalitarian fashion is a matter of fact, so again, if I'm wrong, please demonstrate this. Otherwise, I'll assume that what I'm meant to believe is that opinion is more important than facts: a point of view that has definitely proliferated in the wake of rising internet culture.

Your assertion or thesis about the US media being "totalitarian" in terms of "organization" needs to be developed on your end.  Not mine.

It might be shown to the rest of the readership if you enumerate those six or so companies and make some kind of diagram which ties them to their investors or other corporations.  I don't fully understand what you are taking about.  Sorry about that.  ;)

Well, again, 90% of the media resources are in the hands of 6 corporations. It used to be 50. Now it's six. In other words, almost all of the information we are given is under the control of an extremely small group of concentrated power and wealth, all of which represent the same ideological point of view. That alone is textbook totalitarianism. But when you add to that the fact that a corporation is in and of itself a totalitarian structure, wherein everybody within it has to abide by the decisions of the owners, then there's not even a possibility that there is anything remotely democratic about the mainstream media.

Please name them and we'll all know. Did they consolidate from the 50? Or are they new companies who took them over in hostile takeovers?

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6 (http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6)

The fact that people don't know where they are getting the vast majority of their information from is staggering and is a perfect example of just how subservient the media is to power. At last glance, the 6 corporations were: Comcast, News-corp, Disney, Viacom, Time-Warner, and CBS.  And, yes, a lot of it has to do with consolidation.

Thanks, rab2591 - that is just what I was talking about.  A picture is worth a thousand words!

Now everyone can see that information.

So how does one use that chart effectively?

What?

You can either complain about this or do something about it.

Are there conflicts of interest ?

Is there a new cable company coming to town that you oppose?

Do they have policies of intolerance in their workplace?

That chart is useless, unless you use it.

You can rail against "totalitarianism" in the media.  I'm not sure I'd call it that.  It represents or it could represent, more of a merger for consolidation and maybe efficiency.  I'd look (as a U.S. citizen) at how it benefits my country. Or if it hurts my country.  I'm selfish like that.  :lol

The point is... Obama's stupidity appears as less offending than my scatological references.    ;)

Well, I do what I can - but what would you suggest?


Yes, of course. These are representatives of the country's owners - why in the world would they broadcast news that would challenge their authority or rule? The answer is, they don't.


I'm not sure what you mean by this.


The number one policy of a corporation is intolerance - they are instruments of oppression.


I said the media is totalitarian in structure - and given that it is controlled by a small pocket of concentrated power that represents the ruling ideology, then what I said was exactly right.


It's been very efficient in one regard: misinforming the public and largely presenting one dominating ideological point of view. Again, the mainstream media is reflective of its ownership in that it presents a very narrow range of political thought.


Of course it hurts your country: constantly misinforming the public so that they unquestionably accept the dominant power structure that is working to marginalize and silence their voices, and curb their own power in the name of authoritarian power, is very damaging.

It is why critical thinking is taught. So people know what informs their positions.

Which can be helpful if critical thinking wasn't often taught by people who only want you to think critically in particularly acceptable ways. In this sense, Foucault is helpful. He notes that even our notions of rational inquiry are dictated by the power structures of one's given society.

This is why "thinking critically" is often a translation of "think objectively" which treats every issue as having only two sides - both of which are typically representative of repressive authoritarian power.

So, yes, critical thinking is crucial but frequently the way that critical thinking is taught only works to reinforce the very problems that I am bringing up. But genuine critical thinking, which is almost always shut down as early as kindergarten, would be a wonderful thing.

Do you mean Michel Foucault who wrote the presentation for "Le désordre des familles - Lettres de cachet des Archives de la Bastille?" (18th century) Or someone else?

This is way off the topic the Obama thing...there was once a lot of support for him, in the first term, which has evaporated over the last couple of years as many inconsistent statements have been unearthed and foreign policy has gone out the window. 

That's the one I mean, but what a strange example to bring up.


Of course, Obama is like any other US President in that regard. In some ways, he's better than others, in some ways he's worse. Again, pretty standard fare.

Strange? It is on my bookshelf, from a prior course.

Obama is not really like many others. He is taking law-making powers, reserved for Congress. And not in the first term but in the lame duck term.  

Fair enough. It's just not a canonical text in the way that The Birth of the Clinic, or The Order of Things, or The History of Sexuality or even his articles on the panopticon, and the author function are.


In reality, by the end of 2014, Obama had made fewer executive orders than any U.S. President since 1901. There are other covert ways that he's going about using law-making powers, but in truth, every President in the last hundred years have issued executive orders, most of which were used far more egregiously than Obama. So on this issue he is exactly like the others, if not less so.

What others did in other generations I don't care about. I'm concerned with the here and now. I'm concerned about national and local security. And just because someone else did it doesn't cut it for me. 

Then why did you say that "Obama is not really like many others" in "taking law-making powers reserved for Congress." Why do you suddenly not care about this when it becomes obvious that Obama's use of executive orders is, in fact, less than any other President. When the assumption was that Obama was unique in this regard, it was useful for you to compare him to others.

See, this is the problem. I'm very critical of Obama - and there are lots of critical things that one could say about him. However, the conversation on this thread, particularly on the first page, amounts to fabrications and hysterical lunacy. Case in point: you offered the argument that Obama is unique as a bad president because he over-stretched his political powers, when the reality is that in the case that you talk about, he's over-stretched his powers less not more.

So, while you suggest that we are getting off-point by not talking about Obama, my response to that is that it is unhelpful to discuss things fraudulently and hysterically. What this conversation illustrates is that the criticism that Obama gets could be warranted but, here, is false. And it is false, mostly because it is springs from a whole mythological structure that produces false assumptions (ie. what left-wing means, what right-wing means, what power is, how it operates, and therefore, the media is left leaning, Fox news is uniquely balanced, etc.). And it seems to me that we can't begin to have a conversation about what is really going on before we begin to ask what is causing us to have a conversation in which fabrications and hysteria are treated unquestionably as "the way things really are."

Let me repeat for emphasis. It is of no consequence what others did.  We are in a bad place.

And I do not care for the term "hysteria" or the nonsense of "mythology" that is alluded to.

We have concrete security issues that are unresolved, and threats from both within and without the country.  It's time for action and not discussion and parse words like the WH press corps.  We have a tripartite government for a reason.  That is to avoid a dictatorship or a monarchy.

And the president has a duty to follow and respect the branches of the government he was elected to lead.  And no amount of intellectualizing is going to change that. 

And let me repeat your own words for emphasis: Obama is not really like many others. He is taking law-making powers, reserved for Congress.

Again, "what others did" was of great consequence when you were using it to suggest that Obama was unique in his use of powers. Only when it became the case that your point was a fabrication did the goal posts shift to this notion that what others did was of "no consequence." This is an excellent example of indoctrination: make a point and stand by it until it is impossible to do so any further, at which point you deny that the point was ever relevant to begin with.

The fact is that history can teach us valuable lessons. One valuable lesson is that you can learn a lot from people who want to suggest that history is meaningless.


The US is in a far better place than most of the world. And most of the world is suffering a great deal because of US policies.


I used the term once, but I was really using it not in the traditional medical sense (which has an appalling history) but rather in conjunction with "lunacy" - hence the term hysterical lunacy. That's unfortunately what these discussions amount to and I gave a concrete example of a claim that was both hysterical lunacy and mythological.


True, but of course the more prevailing issue is the threat the we pose on the world rather than the threat that others pose on us.


Agreed - as suggested above, we'd find ourselves in a far more secure place if we ceased being the top contributors to global instability.


Here, I disagree. I think discussion is crucial especially if one is suggested actions based off of false assumptions.


I agree. But when a President uses executive orders less than any other president in the last hundred years, and people act as if he has used them more, then we have population who is living in fantasy world. And this is extraordinarily dangerous. And given that Obama is not only doing what every President before him has done, but is doing it less, in this regard, I'd say the fantasy world represents a greater danger than the kind of thing that you are describing.