-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 04:55:10 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Beach Boys Britain
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Grandfather arrested for holding up robber by gunpoint
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Grandfather arrested for holding up robber by gunpoint  (Read 27878 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Jay
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5985



View Profile
« on: March 21, 2012, 11:06:07 PM »

This really pissess me off.  Angry http://www.cafemom.com/groups/?prism_id=133341&utm_medium=sem2&utm_campaign=prism&utm_source=outbrain&utm_content=1007
« Last Edit: March 21, 2012, 11:07:51 PM by Jay » Logged

A son of anarchy surrounded by the hierarchy.
hypehat
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6311



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2012, 06:14:59 AM »

If holding someone at gunpoint isn't reckless conduct, I'd like to know what is.
Logged

All roads lead to Kokomo. Exhaustive research in time travel has conclusively proven that there is no alternate universe WITHOUT Kokomo. It would've happened regardless.
What is this "life" thing you speak of ?

Quote from: Al Jardine
Syncopate it? In front of all these people?!
bgas
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6372


Oh for the good old days


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2012, 06:21:45 AM »

If holding someone at gunpoint isn't reckless conduct, I'd like to know what is.

It would have been better just to kill the burglar, but make certain his body fell in the window; then plant a gun on him. One less loser for everyone else to deal with
Logged

Nothing I post is my opinion, it's all a message from God
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2012, 06:37:30 AM »

Classic Fox news story.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2012, 07:36:17 AM »

What exactly does this have to do with Fox News other than they along with dozens of other media outlets and websites picked it up after it went viral and became a topic of conversation, much like any other story that "breaks" nationally after being seen or read in local news? It was reported locally then picked up by bloggers and went viral.

An update from New Hampshire, now over a month old: All charges against this homeowner have been dropped. According to the law, he did nothing illegal. And the man whom he caught breaking into another neighbor's house that night had broken into his house as well.

The full story from ABC affiliate WMUR, which is the only news station local to Manchester:

Charges dropped:
http://www.wmur.com/r/30524687/detail.html

Burglar appears in court:
http://www.wmur.com/news/30505607/detail.html

Armed homeowner tracks down burglary suspect:
http://www.wmur.com/news/30495514/detail.html



Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2012, 07:40:15 AM »

I think rockandroll means that the story is designed to get the reader angry and emotional over a small issue, which fox news does with its stories all the time.
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2012, 07:54:35 AM »

And tell me the news media in general doesn't do that same thing which you're singling out Fox for doing every single minute they're on the air? And I disagree if that's his theory because Fox News would pick up a story generating buzz just like any other network. Don't think picking up a story that could generate emotions is limited to Fox News, because it's the entire heartbeat of the news media industry.

I'd like to know how the idea started (or who is promoting the idea) that a news organization would run a story designed to play on the emotions of their viewers is somehow limited to Fox News.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5865


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2012, 08:10:18 AM »

And tell me the news media in general doesn't do that same thing which you're singling out Fox for doing every single minute they're on the air? And I disagree if that's his theory because Fox News would pick up a story generating buzz just like any other network. Don't think picking up a story that could generate emotions is limited to Fox News, because it's the entire heartbeat of the news media industry.

I'd like to know how the idea started (or who is promoting the idea) that a news organization would run a story designed to play on the emotions of their viewers is somehow limited to Fox News.


It's not limited to Fox News. However this particular story would be more likely aired on Fox News on not on CNN or NBC....if only to get the bible-pushers and gun-clingers upset.
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

God must’ve smiled the day Brian Wilson was born!

"ragegasm" - /rāj • ga-zəm/ : a logical mental response produced when your favorite band becomes remotely associated with the bro-country genre.

Ever want to hear some Beach Boys songs mashed up together like The Beatles' 'LOVE' album? Check out my mix!
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 22, 2012, 08:34:17 AM »

Let me clarify a few things here.

Yes, I meant it's a classic Fox news style story. I'm sure you realize too that your response to me that all mainstream media do similar things is very much preaching to the choir, since I've said the same thing countless times on this board. All mainstream media is a theatrical farce and it all represents the status quo ruling elite interests that produce the news and keep it running. With that in mind, I have also said that the status quo ruling elite while encompassing a very narrow range of interests still nevertheless cover a range - generally from the centre-right liberal position to the extreme right Republican position. What I think makes this story particularly Foxy ( Cool) is that it essentially boils down to whipping up hysteria about government power in order to protect a particular brand of ruling elite corporate interests who desire unfettered tyrannical unchecked power and control. Now you see some of that with other mainstream media outlets too - God knows they believe in the sanctity of corporate power since they are corporate power. But nevertheless, their focus can veer a bit more into center-right territory, which means supporting neo-liberal mixed economy interests.

Now, let's get to the facts of this story, some of which guitarfool has pointed out. The initial article posted by the OP states that a "New Hampshire grandfather has been arrested and is facing a possible prison sentence for firing a shot into the ground and holding a burglar at gunpoint until the cops could arrive." What the article doesn't mention is that this incident occurred in the afternoon probably 20 minutes or so after Fleming noticed his house had been broken into and occurred well outside of Fleming's home, down the street. The point that he was "holding a burglar at gunpoint until the cops could arrive" is misleading since Fleming himself didn't actually call the police. He simply grabbed his gun and went patrolling the neighborhood, saw someone coming out of someone else's house who he assumed was the same man who broke into his own house, shot his gun, and then held him at gunpoint. Is this reckless behavior? Yes. Did the police have a right to charge him? Yes. Should the charges have been dropped? Yes, and that's exactly what happened. Outside of a man patrolling the neighborhood with his gun looking for someone that he never identified in the first place, this is a perfectly reasonable chain of events.

Think too about how we're being conditioned by this story because of rhetorical tricks. There is the aforementioned "until the cops arrived" line which misleads us into thinking that Fleming knew the cops were coming when he held the man at gun point when in fact not only did he not know, but instead of him calling the police when he witnessed a crime had taken place in his home, he instead grabbed his gun and went on a vigilante-style hunt for a man he never saw. Also, what's with the terms, "Grandfather arrested for holding a burglar?" Grandfather? What does his status as a grandfather have to do with this? How would we read this story different had the title been "27 year old held at gunpoint by a 61 year old man"? I'm not saying that's a reasonable headline either - merely pointing out that we are being conditioned from the very beginning to be sympathetic to this "grandfather."
« Last Edit: March 22, 2012, 10:14:28 AM by rockandroll » Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2012, 09:10:45 AM »

This is one of the original local reports, posted/aired by ABC in N.H. the Sunday after that Saturday when the incident occurred:

FARMINGTON, N.H. -- A Farmington man is creating plenty of buzz around town after he said he tracked down a burglary suspect and held him at gunpoint until police could arrive.

"I fired into the ground, to the left of him," Dennis Fleming said. "There was nothing but woods behind him. I've owned guns my whole life and I pretty much was sure what I was doing."

Fleming said his home on Ten Rod Road had been burglarized Saturday afternoon. He said personal belongings were stolen, and instead of calling police, he picked up his gun and spoke with neighbors to see if they had seen the suspect around.

Fleming said shortly after he heard a loud sound coming from a neighbor's home, and saw a man running out back.

"I saw the guy, he crash-banged out of a house right down the road here and I happened to see," Fleming added. "I approached him with a gun, told him to stop, fired a warning shot."

Neighbors called 911 and police quickly arrested 27-year-old Joseph Hebert. Police said Hebert is accused of breaking into two homes on the street within a short period of time Saturday.

"He was very apologetic," Fleming noted. "It was just too bad it happened."

Neighbors applauded Fleming.

"For what little we have nowadays and people just come and take what you got, I think it was good that someone finally did something about it," said David Bernardini, who lives nearby.

But police were not as happy, and later arrested Fleming Saturday night on a felony reckless conduct charge. The charge came because the shot had been fired.

Fleming was released on personal recognizance. He said was only trying to protect the neighborhood, but admits he should have approached it differently.

"You're supposed to call the police, but I was so mad because I felt so violated, that I just went looking for the guy and I shouldn't have done that," he said. "I should've just called the police."

Police said Fleming acted in the wrong. Fleming will appear in court next month to answer the felony charge.

Hebert is scheduled to be arraigned later this week. In addition to the two burglary charges, police said Hebert is also facing a felony charge.

Read more: http://www.wmur.com/news/30495514/detail.html#ixzz1prRQ3pUA




The guy admits he should have handled it differently, ultimately the case has worked out, the homeowner wasn't charged in court and the idiot breaking into the houses is in jail for numerous offenses, where he belongs. One aspect that bothers me is as much as perhaps we shouldn't be empathetic to the "grandfather" label (I agree, that's loaded and unnecessary for this story), the frustration of having the privacy of your family's home violated by a burglar, having personal property stolen from that house which you or someone in your family owns, and then having the same suspect breaking into other neighbors' homes trying to steal their property could lead to frustration and in those moments wanting to do something about it. All of that can lead to pure emotion and irrational decisions, which happened here.

However, If there were malicious, vigilante-style intent at play, the man with the gun would have more likely fired it at the suspect instead of firing a warning shot *into the ground*, mind you, not even a shot into the air which would put more people totally unrelated to this case at risk. If his recklessness were beyond wanting to stop this guy, or his irrationality went beyond where it actually stopped, he wouldn't have given the decision as much thought as to fire the gun into the ground rather than into the air or into the suspect.

First, we should feel no sympathy, no empathy, or try to relate the man breaking into the homes in some moral equivalent to the man whose home was broken into. The burglar at the moment he was breaking into another home and running away after already stealing from another was ignoring some of the basic principles of living in society, namely respecting the rights of others...not to mention the laws against such behavior.

Firing a warning shot into the ground was a mistake, it was wrong and the homeowner admitted it, but let's not take this to some ridiculous end where the sheer act of him doing this equals the illegal act of the burglar violating peoples' homes then running away.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 22, 2012, 09:18:05 AM »

And again, whatever happens after the initial publication of a story becomes whatever those passing it on make of it. Why not also call it "classic ABC style" since this N.H. affiliate is ABC, and ABC has just caused a major uproar that is touching everything from the USDA to local schools to supermarkets by borrowing a term "pink slime" from a blogger somewhere and having Diane Sawyer run an expose on "World News Tonight" about this ground beef additive, causing a near-panic among consumers of ground beef in the US?

The term "pink slime" was all but unknown to the general public until Diane Sawyer's report, now it is part of the lexicon and causing major issues...why didn't they just use the official industry term instead of "pink slime"? Emotional impact, and ratings. Money. Profit. Exposure. All of that stuff.

The more we continue to single out Fox News as the most evil thing to ever hit the news business, the more we give a free pass to the networks like ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. to do the same thing. Do we want that at all, even if we agree more with one network than another? If you agree with MSNBC's news coverage or CNN's version of events, that's a choice and make that choice based on preference, but don't try to say they're any different, better, or occupy a higher ground of honor or trustworthiness when it comes to the way they gather and report news. It's a business. The only high ground is who generates the most profit. Smiley
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 22, 2012, 09:55:00 AM »

A few replies which may be relevant.

Quote
One aspect that bothers me is as much as perhaps we shouldn't be empathetic to the "grandfather" label (I agree, that's loaded and unnecessary for this story), the frustration of having the privacy of your family's home violated by a burglar, having personal property stolen from that house which you or someone in your family owns, and then having the same suspect breaking into other neighbors' homes trying to steal their property could lead to frustration and in those moments wanting to do something about it. All of that can lead to pure emotion and irrational decisions, which happened here.

According to what Fleming told Foster's Daily Democrat, a local broadsheet newspaper, he didn't know "right away if anything from his home was missing." If items were stolen, Fleming probably only knew that was the case after this incident took place. The fact that this was "the same suspect" while being a strong assumption was nevertheless an assumption. Fleming hadn't identified the burglar, wasn't around when his house was broken into. The fact that the burglar was exiting another house is somewhat coincidental too. Fleming simply grabbed his gun and began looking for someone suspicious - that the person had to look suspicious was all he had to go on. The fact that he happened to catch a man on his way out of another house does make Fleming's actions seem much more justified only in retrospect. But as the events actually unfolded, Fleming did not grab his gun to catch a burglar coming out of a house, but rather to hunt for someone who looked like the kind of person who would burglarize a house.

Quote
However, If there were malicious, vigilante-style intent at play, the man with the gun would have more likely fired it at the suspect instead of firing a warning shot *into the ground*, mind you, not even a shot into the air which would put more people totally unrelated to this case at risk. If his recklessness were beyond wanting to stop this guy, or his irrationality went beyond where it actually stopped, he wouldn't have given the decision as much thought as to fire the gun into the ground rather than into the air or into the suspect.

In fact, bringing out a gun and patrolling the streets in broad daylight when there could be children around looking for someone you've never seen without having called the police is serious recklessness, in my opinion. Yes, it would have been more reckless had he started shooting arbitrarily but let's face it, it's reckless behavior all the same.

Quote
The more we continue to single out Fox News as the most evil thing to ever hit the news business, the more we give a free pass to the networks like ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. to do the same thing.

But of course, nobody did that here. Saying that this story sounds like a classic Fox news story is nowhere near stating that Fox is "the most evil thing to hit the news business." Rather, it's saying what is exactly true - that Fox more than any other network has an agenda to whip up anti-government hysteria because their interest is in protecting the ruling elite position of unchecked corporate tyranny. Now what ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC do is equally farcical - but, I should add, it's farcical in a different way and although it's farcical in a dangerous way, I would suggest not as dangerous as the kind of attitude that Fox appears to be fostering. The fact is, every outlet you mentioned should be heavily criticized but that doesn't mean that what Fox does is the same as them. It's different and I think we somewhat miss a real complex situation by not pointing out these nuances.

Quote
The term "pink slime" was all but unknown to the general public until Diane Sawyer's report, now it is part of the lexicon and causing major issues...why didn't they just use the official industry term instead of "pink slime"? Emotional impact, and ratings. Money. Profit. Exposure. All of that stuff.

Well, in fact, I think we're looking at this the wrong way. I don't necessarily think that news organizations aim for "emotional impact" because it will lead to a larger audience share. In fact, the audience doesn't figure in too much when it comes to major media decisions. Revenue, for the most part, is generated not by audience but by advertisers and it is they who end up shaping the way that stories get told - not because they are personally all in the room making decisions but because the people who are are aware of where the money is coming from.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2012, 10:04:42 AM by rockandroll » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: March 22, 2012, 10:19:56 AM »

Firing a warning shot into the ground was a mistake, it was wrong and the homeowner admitted it, but let's not take this to some ridiculous end where the sheer act of him doing this equals the illegal act of the burglar violating peoples' homes then running away.

I should add too that I don't think anyone is doing this, either.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 22, 2012, 10:41:16 AM »

I'm not suggesting anyone here is doing anything of the sort here on this board, however if you peruse the various websites, blogs, and commentaries posted under this story there are underlying attempts to lessen the "wrong" of someone caught breaking into a house, multiple houses, actually, and emphasize the recklessness of a homeowner firing a warning shot. When you lessen one and then emphasize another, it's attempting to set up a moral equivalent where both are either bad judgements or both are wrong, but both exist on the same level.

If the homeowner with the gun admits he should have handled it differently, that's the end of the story, and it's a done deal. No one was hurt, the bad guy is in jail where he belongs, some neighbors are glad this guy did take action though it wasn't the best decision, and the guy with the gun is free and clear of anything.

Honestly, what purpose does it serve at this point to second guess what Fosters Daily Democrat reports versus WMUR? On the TV report transcript I posted above, it said the gun owner *did* know his items were stolen, rather than "assumed" he had been robbed. Maybe the Daily Democrat or the WMUR report got something wrong - it happens all the time. Let's not set up a second-guessing assumption on the homeowner on when exactly he knew he'd been robbed. Or have whichever outlet published the mistake correct it, because he either knew or didn't know he'd been robbed.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 22, 2012, 10:53:40 AM »


Honestly, what purpose does it serve at this point to second guess what Fosters Daily Democrat reports versus WMUR? On the TV report transcript I posted above, it said the gun owner *did* know his items were stolen, rather than "assumed" he had been robbed. Maybe the Daily Democrat or the WMUR report got something wrong - it happens all the time. Let's not set up a second-guessing assumption on the homeowner on when exactly he knew he'd been robbed. Or have whichever outlet published the mistake correct it, because he either knew or didn't know he'd been robbed.


Both papers can be right. The one you posted doesn't state a timeline the way the Foster's one does. It merely places "He said personal belongings were stolen" before "he picked up his gun" which suggests that he noticed that his belongings were stolen before he picked up his gun, but doesn't necessarily mean that that's what actually happened or that that accurately reflects what Fleming said. With all the information the writer had, they could have simply put the sentence together in a clear way. At any rate, I wasn't questioning the truth of the article you posted -- merely your assertion that Fleming reacted the way he did as a result, among other things, of "having personal property stolen from that house which you or someone in your family owns." I'm just saying that with the information we have, even though personal belongings were stolen, there is no way to say for sure that Fleming knew that when he grabbed his gun and went looking for the burglar.

Quote
I'm not suggesting anyone here is doing anything of the sort here on this board, however if you peruse the various websites, blogs, and commentaries posted under this story there are underlying attempts to lessen the "wrong" of someone caught breaking into a house, multiple houses, actually, and emphasize the recklessness of a homeowner firing a warning shot. When you lessen one and then emphasize another, it's attempting to set up a moral equivalent where both are either bad judgements or both are wrong, but both exist on the same level.

They don't exist on the same level but I might understand the impulse, especially when someone is combatting the way the story is usually packaged, like the one provided by the OP, which is a patently absurd telling of the story.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2012, 10:54:47 AM by rockandroll » Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2012, 11:15:33 AM »

The last point is the issue, and I'll come back to it saying it was worded in a different way than the original story was reported to make a certain impact, but that practice isn't and shouldn't be exclusively tied to Fox News because they all do it. If someone leans right, they'll point to MSNBC. If someone leans left, they'll point to Fox. It just gets tiresome.

Just consider when the film "Network" was released and became a sensation, spawning the "I'm mad as hell.." catchphrase, television journalism was limited to 3 networks: NBC, CBS, and ABC, along with PBS. There was no Fox news, no cable news alternative to the "big 3". And among the big 3's anchors was a man some still call "the most trusted man in America".

If so much blame can be placed on Fox News, what parts of the news media in 1976 was the film Network ripping to shreds? The same themes in that film ring true today.

Or how about Don Henley's "Dirty Laundry", another anti-news-media song from the early 80's? "Bubble-headed bleached-blondes" and "crap is king" and all of that sloganeering...there was no Fox News network in 1983, so who exactly did Henley have a beef with when the only new kid on the news block at that time was Ted Turner's upstart CNN? Gotta be the "big 3", and they're still at it. Yet it's Fox News that gets blamed most often, and ironically sometimes by those pundits and commentators collecting a paycheck from one of those "big 3" networks. Fair is fair, spread the blame as far as it should go. Smiley
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2012, 11:47:08 AM »

The last point is the issue, and I'll come back to it saying it was worded in a different way than the original story was reported to make a certain impact, but that practice isn't and shouldn't be exclusively tied to Fox News because they all do it. If someone leans right, they'll point to MSNBC. If someone leans left, they'll point to Fox. It just gets tiresome.

Just consider when the film "Network" was released and became a sensation, spawning the "I'm mad as hell.." catchphrase, television journalism was limited to 3 networks: NBC, CBS, and ABC, along with PBS. There was no Fox news, no cable news alternative to the "big 3". And among the big 3's anchors was a man some still call "the most trusted man in America".

If so much blame can be placed on Fox News, what parts of the news media in 1976 was the film Network ripping to shreds? The same themes in that film ring true today.

Or how about Don Henley's "Dirty Laundry", another anti-news-media song from the early 80's? "Bubble-headed bleached-blondes" and "crap is king" and all of that sloganeering...there was no Fox News network in 1983, so who exactly did Henley have a beef with when the only new kid on the news block at that time was Ted Turner's upstart CNN? Gotta be the "big 3", and they're still at it. Yet it's Fox News that gets blamed most often, and ironically sometimes by those pundits and commentators collecting a paycheck from one of those "big 3" networks. Fair is fair, spread the blame as far as it should go. Smiley

Okay, but again, you're talking to an actual person here not some abstract figure somewhere out in the blogosphere. And this person had said again and again, both elsewhere and on this very thread, that there are very deep-rooted problems with the entire mainstream media. The movie Network, which deals with these issues somewhat trivially I think, does get at something that is essentially correct, that the news is shaped and controlled by its ownership - namely corporate power. Now it would be purely fantastical to pretend that things haven't changed dramatically since 1976 and 1983. Yes, things were dire then, but they are much worse shape now. In 1983, about 90% of the mainstream media was controlled by about 50 coporations. Today, that number has been reduced to 5. Now, of course, this radically changes news. Were there problems in the 70s and early 80s? Of course. Are the problems we face now the same problems as they faced then? Yes but, I would add, on a dramatically larger scale. Now this change in the media is reflective and even part of an even larger issue which is that now an even smaller group of people control an even larger amount of overall wealth in the entire country.

So, yes, when I say that a problem with the mainstream media is that it is owned by a small percentage of concentrated power, then I am not targeting Fox. I'm speaking about the problem of the mainstream media as a whole. Now, with that in mind, one would also be foolish to not take into account the nuances in the narrow political perspective that consitutes the ruling elite. Differences within narrow political perspectives can nevertheless have enormous consequences. As far as I'm concerned none of the consequences of mainstream media are good ones but the consequences that come out from Fox's perspective are much more negative. Take, for example, The Tea Party. The Tea Party is, of course, ridiculed unfairly by, say, MSNBC, because of their opposition to Barack Obama. But the problem with the Tea Party is much more serious than that. Let's put aside the fact that they are organized by the ruling elite. Putting that aside - what do they stand for? Essentially, their platform is to hate the government when it is in favor of doing something for them, and love the government when it is in favor of doing something for the ruling class - that is, pure, unchecked tyranny. So, for example, you are supposed to hate the idea of government getting involved in health care, but at the same time support health care being controlled by private interests who, according to the framers of the HMO policy, can benefit most by not giving care. Now that's extraordinarily dangerous. Moreover, people are being taught to distrust sciences, education, and so on, and all of that serves to, in fact, disarm the population of their potential political power rather than reinforce it. And this distrust of the sciences and education as some kind of arrogant liberal institution in fact, could lead to the destruction of the human species (I'm thinking here about climate denialism). On a smaller scale, it has led to a rise in what were previously nearly eradicated diseases because of the anti-vaccine movement. Now it is that extreme wing of the political ruling class that Fox represents, as do the Republicans. So yes, mainstream media as a whole is a problem but that doesn't change the fact that the point of view that Fox represents is probably the most dangerous one circulating at the political level in the United States right now.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2012, 12:04:12 PM by rockandroll » Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2012, 12:12:24 PM »

The last point is the issue, and I'll come back to it saying it was worded in a different way than the original story was reported to make a certain impact, but that practice isn't and shouldn't be exclusively tied to Fox News because they all do it. If someone leans right, they'll point to MSNBC. If someone leans left, they'll point to Fox. It just gets tiresome.

Just consider when the film "Network" was released and became a sensation, spawning the "I'm mad as hell.." catchphrase, television journalism was limited to 3 networks: NBC, CBS, and ABC, along with PBS. There was no Fox news, no cable news alternative to the "big 3". And among the big 3's anchors was a man some still call "the most trusted man in America".

If so much blame can be placed on Fox News, what parts of the news media in 1976 was the film Network ripping to shreds? The same themes in that film ring true today.

Or how about Don Henley's "Dirty Laundry", another anti-news-media song from the early 80's? "Bubble-headed bleached-blondes" and "crap is king" and all of that sloganeering...there was no Fox News network in 1983, so who exactly did Henley have a beef with when the only new kid on the news block at that time was Ted Turner's upstart CNN? Gotta be the "big 3", and they're still at it. Yet it's Fox News that gets blamed most often, and ironically sometimes by those pundits and commentators collecting a paycheck from one of those "big 3" networks. Fair is fair, spread the blame as far as it should go. Smiley

Okay, but again, you're talking to an actual person here not some abstract figure somewhere out in the blogosphere. And this person had said again and again, both elsewhere and on this very thread, that there are very deep-rooted problems with the entire mainstream media. The movie Network, which deals with these issues somewhat trivially I think, does get at something that is essentially correct, that the news is shaped and controlled by its ownership - namely corporate power. Now it would be purely fantastical to pretend that things haven't changed dramatically since 1976 and 1983. Yes, things were dire then, but they are much worse shape now. In 1983, about 90% of the mainstream media was controlled by about 50 coporations. Today, that number has been reduced to 5. Now, of course, this radically changes news. Were there problems in the 70s and early 80s? Of course. Are the problems we face now the same problems as they faced then? Yes but, I would add, on a dramatically larger scale. Now this change in the media is reflective and even part of an even larger issue which is that now an even smaller group of people control an even larger amount of overall wealth in the entire country.

So, yes, when I say that a problem with the mainstream media is that it is owned by a small percentage of concentrated power, then I am not targeting Fox. I'm speaking about the problem of the mainstream media as a whole. Now, with that in mind, one would also be foolish to not take into account the nuances in the narrow political perspective that consitutes the ruling elite. Differences within narrow political perspectives can nevertheless have enormous consequences. As far as I'm concerned none of the consequences of mainstream media are good ones but the consequences that come out from Fox's perspective are much more negative. Take, for example, The Tea Party. The Tea Party is, of course, ridiculed unfairly by, say, MSNBC, because of their opposition to Barack Obama. But the problem with the Tea Party is much more serious than that. Let's put aside the fact that they are organized by the ruling elite. Putting that aside - what do they stand for? Essentially, their platform is to hate the government when it is in favor of doing something for them, and love the government when it is in favor of doing something for the ruling class - that is, pure, unchecked tyranny. So, for example, you are supposed to hate the idea of government getting involved in health care, but at the same time support health care being controlled by private interests who, according to the framers of the HMO policy, can benefit most by not giving care. Now that's extraordinarily dangerous. Moreover, people are being taught to distrust sciences, education, and so on, and all of that serves to, in fact, disarm the population of their potential political power rather than reinforce it and in fact, could lead to the destruction of the human species (I'm thinking here about climate denialism). Now it is that extreme wing of the political ruling class that Fox represents. So yes, mainstream media as a whole is a problem but that doesn't change the fact that the point of view that Fox represents is probably the most dangerous one circulating at the political level right now.

But to be fair, you're focusing on the left calling the right extreme, which is par for the course on both sides. In the last paragraph above you are labeling something dangerous based on your opinion and your perception of what a group like the Tea Party stands for, and what helped form that perception? Is Fox News dangerous because you or someone else disagrees with them, or are they a legitimate threat to someone or something?

If we substitute "Occupy Wall Street" or any of the other "Occupy" offshoots for "The Tea Party" in your post, does it still add up to the same conclusions and suggestions of tyranny? If not, why not? Is it factual, or is it opinion? There are some people who might consider the motives of some of the groups organized by Boots Riley around "Occupy Oakland" on the same level as you have suggested Fox News exists, as "dangerous" or as a threat to something. If you agree with Occupy, then they're far less dangerous than Fox News. If you agree with Fox News, they're less dangerous than Occupy. And it keeps going around in circles.

I haven't been convinced that Fox News is doing anything different than the major media outlets have been doing for decades, and how they are more dangerous because of the way they report the news. Again, in theory, why only focus on Fox News and the Tea Party instead of MSNBC and Occupy, if there is something more to the point than a simple political disagreement with either side?
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: March 22, 2012, 12:44:21 PM »

But to be fair, you're focusing on the left calling the right extreme, which is par for the course on both sides.

I'm not calling the right extreme. The right is a large area of a variety of political opinions. I'm referring to a particularly extremist position on the right, not the entire right. So, for example, the Democratic party represent right wing interests but not extreme right wing interests. Fox news and Republicans, on the other hand, do represent extreme right wing interests. Being on an extreme end of the political spectrum is not in and of itself a bad thing - it's what those extreme positions represent that could or could not have negative consequnces.

Quote
In the last paragraph above you are labeling something dangerous based on your opinion and your perception of what a group like the Tea Party stands for, and what helped form that perception?

What helped form that perception was taking the Tea Party at their word. That they and others like them on the extreme right hold positions that are extremely dangerous is not my opinion. Take, for example, my point about the anti-sciences and education position. The measles have now re-emerged in communities who have high rates of people who have exempted themselves and their children from vaccinations. In 2010, there were over 2000 cases of the whooping cough in California. Ten infants died, only one of which had a vaccination. Now is it my opinion that those infants died or did they actually die?

Now, this is not to say that the anti-vaccination crowd and the Tea Party crowd are one in the same but they do come from similar places and they come out of similar mindsets and both result in objectively dangerous consequences. So, again, you take away money from social programs and instead shift it to private power, then that will inevitably have negative consequences - and we know that because it is historically verifiable. So take a Tea Party position - namely, keep health care private. Again, according to the main policy framers of the HMO, John Ehrlichman, the reason why this "private enterprise" health care system works is because "All the incentives are toward less medical care, because the less care they give them, the more money they make." Now, according to the main framers of health care policy in the United States, a privately controlled health care system functions to give "less medical care" in order to profit. Now again, is it my opinion that less medical care to people who need it is dangerous? Of course not - that's patent nonsense.

Quote
Is Fox News dangerous because you or someone else disagrees with them, or are they a legitimate threat to someone or something?

I disagree with all of them, so this doesn't quite hold up. They are dangerous because they offer a dangerous point of view.

Quote
If we substitute "Occupy Wall Street" or any of the other "Occupy" offshoots for "The Tea Party" in your post, does it still add up to the same conclusions and suggestions of tyranny? If not, why not? Is it factual, or is it opinion? There are some people who might consider the motives of some of the groups organized by Boots Riley around "Occupy Oakland" on the same level as you have suggested Fox News exists, as "dangerous" or as a threat to something. If you agree with Occupy, then they're far less dangerous than Fox News. If you agree with Fox News, they're less dangerous than Occupy. And it keeps going around in circles.

Well, in fact, what gets us out of those circles is actually examining the issues. In the real world, people who think about issues and who understand issues don't call things dangerous because they disagree with people. They call things dangerous because things are dangerous and they recognize that things become more dangerous the more people ignore that fact.

Now, Occupy is different. It is a legitimately grassroots organization, unlike the Tea Party which was created and is entirely controlled by corporate interests and corporate funding. Much like the media, the Tea Party reflect the positions of the people who own it. Now nobody owns the Occupy movement - it is a genuine reflection of populist concerns - namely, reversing the corporate coup that has taken place in the United States which has rendered the citizenry impotent. Now, in my opinion, the Occupy movement is probably the most exciting and most beneficial political development to happen in my lifetime. The consequences of it could be enormously positive - and most of that is because it's completely populist based and communal in structure rather than tyrannically organized, but that's for another time.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2012, 12:59:20 PM by rockandroll » Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: March 22, 2012, 12:52:09 PM »

Ron Paul's tea party was hijacked by the corporate powers like Dick Armey and the religious right after obama got elected.
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: March 22, 2012, 12:56:56 PM »

Ron Paul's tea party was hijacked by the corporate powers like Dick Armey and the religious right after obama got elected.

Meh, the Tea Party was organized from the beginning by industrialists like David Koch.
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #21 on: March 22, 2012, 01:03:25 PM »

Ron Paul's tea party was hijacked by the corporate powers like Dick Armey and the religious right after obama got elected.

Meh, the Tea Party was organized from the beginning by industrialists like David Koch.
I don't like the Koch Brothers either, I'm worried that occupy will be taken over as well.
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: March 22, 2012, 01:07:21 PM »

I hope not  but I remain optimistic. Ultimately, the movement seems to work on the assumption that real progress is a result of communication, education, and awareness, rather than someone with a lot of money bankrolling your movement and telling you what to do or what the next step should be.
Logged
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9996


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 22, 2012, 10:34:19 PM »

Interesting conversation so far.

I do have to question the accuracy of the information on the Tea Party, though. Much of my disputes and disagreements come from seeing scenarios where groups want to have it both ways, on both sides of the ideological aisle. Or of telling one story to fill a need one year, then revising the story to fill a different need later.

In the case of the Tea Party, are they a "rag-tag bunch" of disorganized, barely cohesive local groups as many in the Democratic party and in the media including Chris Matthews described them in the months leading up to the 2010 congressional elections? Are they just local gatherings of pissed-off voters who have no cohesive national message? Or are they really a well-oiled and smartly funded political machine organized by the Koch brothers in an attempt to defeat Democrats at the polls? The initial tactic was to portray the Tea Party as insignificant, disorganized, inconsequential, a fad. Then we had commentators mocking the movement calling them tea-baggers, which still holds true today.

Yet when this rag-tag bunch of unorganized folks turned out to vote in 2010, and cost enough high-profile Republicans and Democrats their jobs in politics including during the primaries, the Tea Party suddenly became a well-oiled attack machine funded by the Kochs.

Which is it, are they a machine or a disorganized cadre of local groups? Were the Kochs behind a candidate like Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, who unseated a long-serving Republican only to lose to Democrat Chris Koons that November, a loss which gave the D's an extra senate vote to pass the health care bill where the seat before O'Donnell's upset victory was almost a guaranteed win for the R's? Or was the O'Donnell candidacy a smoke-screen to cover the real story behind the movement?

The thing I have to make clear is I follow politics very aggressively, I devour news every day about politicians and their shortcomings, yet I despise the whole system. I'll give anyone a fair shot to win me over, but when I see warning signs start to appear that things aren't what they seem, my cynicism takes over. For the Tea Party, I watched some rallies on TV, I listened to them on local radio and internet, I heard them out, and some of what they said made sense. However, as soon as I heard that Dick Armey was somehow associated with them, they lost me and I lost interest.

Likewise for the Occupy movement(s), don't believe the hype. At the beginning, when they first got attention in the media, I had to agree with some of what they said regarding Wall Street. The innate greed of a Goldman Sachs corporate entity sickens me, I'm all for raising a fist in the air and saying "I'm mad as hell!". Then Occupy started to look more like the same familiar group of bandana-wearing idiots who regularly follow events like the G4 and G8 summit meetings at various locales and decide to protest them by smashing windows of local businesses, waving the anarchy signs in the air, and in general acting like loons in the name of their cause. And in that process disrupting the local people and local businesses who have nothing to do with either the cause or the ideals these folks are railing against.

We had people in Philly for several weeks inconvenienced by these folks camping out and deciding to march in traffic during rush hour, which only caused problems and delays for the working people either commuting to or from work or being delayed in doing their job...those working people being the so-called 99% that the occupiers were supposedly there to help.

One way to get people cynical about your cause is to disrupt the very people you're claiming to be supporting. And the anarchy sign...appearing on various tents, shelters made of shipping skids, and various cardboard signs and hats...is that really about anything? As relevant as a Che t-shirt on a college kid sitting on a trust fund? Smiley

There's my acidic side, but damn it if the occupy folks had stuck to being regular people angry with the Wall Street mentality and abuses, I'd side with them. As they began looking and acting more like the G4 idiot crowd than regular working folks, and flashing anarchy signs, and as various groups like the Free Mumia crowd and MoveOn started to appear in the midst, they became a caricature. And caricatures do not win people over to a cause. Just like Dick Armey becoming a Tea Party guy...they lost it.

However, having followed the Tea Party story as a story rather than with a vested interest in the group or their agenda, I will step in to say "time out" when someone isn't being accurate with the history or the facts of the group. The original Tea Party groups were in fact grassroots local organizations, where word spread through internet word of mouth, social media, and yes...some stragglers left in the dust of Ron Paul's failed 2008 candidacy.

Whatever happened after the Koch brothers and Dick Armey and whoever else threw a hat in the Tea Party ring is what it is, just like the Occupy rallies in Oakland and New York among others morphed into the bandana, teargas, and bullhorn stereotypes of an anarchist rally...but the story that this Tea Party movement somehow went from starting as a disorganized bunch of angry conservatives wanting to blow off steam to having its real roots as a highly organized attack machine has to be told for what it is: untrue. I guess we should flip a coin and decide which version of Chris Matthews' description of the movement we should trust, either the one from spring 2010 or the one from spring 2012. Cheesy

Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: March 23, 2012, 12:50:43 PM »

Interesting conversation so far.

I do have to question the accuracy of the information on the Tea Party, though. Much of my disputes and disagreements come from seeing scenarios where groups want to have it both ways, on both sides of the ideological aisle. Or of telling one story to fill a need one year, then revising the story to fill a different need later.

Again, though, I am not some fantasy person who encompasses these "groups" that "want to have it both ways." I mean, if your problem is with the reporters of MSNBC, or people in the blogosphere, then I'm certainly not going to defend them and you'd have to take their arguments up with them, not me. Furthermore, I don't particularly see the relevance of bringing it up. Naturally an organization like MSNBC is not going to stand firm on a particular issue, because they don't care about the issues. They are not interested in giving any substantial information, only in defending the power structure that produces the network. For them that simply entails discrediting the Tea Party -- it doesn't matter how.

Also, I'm not sure on what you mean by "both sides of the ideological aisle." It seems that you are referencing Fox vs. say, MSNBC. To me, both Fox and MSNBC are part of the same ideology in that they both represent the interests of the same ruling class. Yes, they encompass two mildly different points of view but they do so from within the same basic ideological structure. Rather than say two people fighting over whether to go see a basketball game or a baseball game, this is more like two friends fighting over where to sit at the same baseball game.

Quote
In the case of the Tea Party, are they a "rag-tag bunch" of disorganized, barely cohesive local groups as many in the Democratic party and in the media including Chris Matthews described them in the months leading up to the 2010 congressional elections? Are they just local gatherings of pissed-off voters who have no cohesive national message? Or are they really a well-oiled and smartly funded political machine organized by the Koch brothers in an attempt to defeat Democrats at the polls?

Since I'm not Chris Matthews and since he himself probably didn't know, I'm not particularly concerned with what he had to say on the matter. Matthews is a showbiz entertainment figure, just like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. He has nothing of value to say. Nor am I concerned with what one half of the ruling elite (the Democrats) had to say about the other half of the ruling elite (the corporate-controlled Tea Party). As far as I'm concerned that's just an example of the one half protecting their interests from the other. Naturally, they're not particularly interested in investigating the real substance of the matter - they are simply interested in protecting their place in social hierarchy. That the Tea Party have a message is debatable, though I think they do have one and, in my opinion, it comes from a fairly rational place - that is, we are people who have done the right things in life, we do what an American should do -- why, then, are we getting screwed? This basic fundamental question being asked by the Tea Partiers is, I think, a very rational one. Now the problem begins when they aren't given the answer. Now historically this lack of an answer has had several negative consequences. Going back several decades, your average working Americans looked at the major media and saw particular racial figures being demonized and so forth. And so it became that the reason my life is crummy is because of the racial figure, therefore once we get rid of the racial figure (the African-American, the Latino, the immigrant, etc.) who is taking what's rightfully mine, then I'll be able to actually have some kind of social mobility. Now there's still traces of that -- but what extreme right wing sources have now replaced the racial figure with is the government. The reason my life is crummy is because the government is unneccessarily taxing me to death. Consequently, you have the Tea Party as a result -- they become organized and controlled naturally by corporate figures who do desire a nanny state but only for the wealthy. Therefore you get a group of people organized to despise the social spending that helps them, and support the social spending that exploits them. In both the case of the racial figure and the government, the real source of the problem is displaced but of course nobody discovers the real source because the real source is what's producing mainstream information.

That the Tea Party is a smartly funded political machine is uncontroversial. And it's not uncontroversial because MSNBC is currently reporting it that way, it's uncontroversial because it's factually accurate. Whether the goal is to defeat the Democrats is more debatable. Ultimately, the Democrats serve the interests of the corporate controlled Tea Party quite nicely whether they agree with them or not. As long as iThe Tea Party gets people (both inside and outside their organization) to hate the government and, therefore, ignore the real source of the problem, it really does its job. It's not so much about who or who doesn't get into power since whoever gets into power is going to protect the status quo regardless.

Quote
Likewise for the Occupy movement(s), don't believe the hype. At the beginning, when they first got attention in the media, I had to agree with some of what they said regarding Wall Street. The innate greed of a Goldman Sachs corporate entity sickens me, I'm all for raising a fist in the air and saying "I'm mad as hell!". Then Occupy started to look more like the same familiar group of bandana-wearing idiots who regularly follow events like the G4 and G8 summit meetings at various locales and decide to protest them by smashing windows of local businesses, waving the anarchy signs in the air, and in general acting like loons in the name of their cause. And in that process disrupting the local people and local businesses who have nothing to do with either the cause or the ideals these folks are railing against.

Keep in mind there has been a great deal of effort to discredit protest movements over the years in order to diffuse their legitimacy and part of that has been to concoct an image of the protestor as "bandara-wearing idiots." This has taken all sorts of insidious forms. Take, for example, the now notorious incident from 2007 in Montebello, Quebec where protest organizers identified three undercover police officers in the crowd, one of which was carrying a rock, clearly with the intention of disrupting the event and discrediting it. What's unique about this incident is not that police were going undercover with intent to disrupt the protest, causing damage that would be sourced to the protesters. What's unique about this incident is that they were caught doing it. In fact, you have to be living in a dream world not to accept that the disruptions that occur at protests are mostly caused by police officers, not necessarily disguised as protesters as was the case in Quebec but in generally inciting violence.

Quote
We had people in Philly for several weeks inconvenienced by these folks camping out and deciding to march in traffic during rush hour, which only caused problems and delays for the working people either commuting to or from work or being delayed in doing their job...those working people being the so-called 99% that the occupiers were supposedly there to help.

To be honest, I don't particularly care. If working people are more upset about that kind of disruption than they are about the very conditions of their existence, then that only goes to show just how deep the level of ideological indoctrination runs and how necessary it is to communicate to them in a way that will make them aware of the issues. Now one could debate about effective means of communication, and I don't necessarily believe what you describe is the most effective but it is not necessarily less effective than say keeping within the boarders of a march along Wall Street where people can either hear or not hear about issues. People typically become most aware of issues if they are personally affected by them - or are shown how entangled they already are in the issues.
 
Quote
There's my acidic side, but damn it if the occupy folks had stuck to being regular people angry with the Wall Street mentality and abuses, I'd side with them. As they began looking and acting more like the G4 idiot crowd than regular working folks, and flashing anarchy signs, and as various groups like the Free Mumia crowd and MoveOn started to appear in the midst, they became a caricature.

The best part about the Occupy movement, though, is that it is so open. It is not led by an overarching figure - it is, thankfully, leaderless. So consequently they veer from the extreme left to some centrist figures from MoveOn. The consequences of that is that you get a variety of people. The answer to that is not, I don't think, to simply weed out the people you don't like. That's a version of Stalinism, as far as I'm concerned. Rather, Occupy is an opportunity for groups of people who have been entirely shut out and disenfranchised to communicate with each other. Now that's a very dangerous thing for the ruling elite, because they are used to having the monopoly of mainstream communication. So naturally there have been enormous efforts at discrediting what is ultimately the most vibrant and productive protest to occur in my lifetime.

Quote
However, having followed the Tea Party story as a story rather than with a vested interest in the group or their agenda, I will step in to say "time out" when someone isn't being accurate with the history or the facts of the group. The original Tea Party groups were in fact grassroots local organizations, where word spread through internet word of mouth, social media, and yes...some stragglers left in the dust of Ron Paul's failed 2008 candidacy.

In fact, in the weeks before the first Tea Party Tax Day protests, the David Koch-run Americans for Prosperity was hosting a website for offering talking points to protestors. This is at the very beginning of 2009. And, in fact, according to a New Yorker investigation from 2010, a Republican campaign consultant noted of the Tea Party that "The Koch brothers gave the money that founded it."
« Last Edit: March 23, 2012, 05:08:05 PM by rockandroll » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.539 seconds with 21 queries.