Posted on 09/19/2005 8:36:17 PM PDT by aculeus
Or a Pulitzer Prize for "Best Short Story: Fiction."
You're wrong. He did turn elections. He was deceptive and tried to swing emotion to the more socialist candidate, everytime. Emotion gets out the voter. He lied. He lied on purpose.
He was a socialist that planned to deceive America so that central government would overcome state's rights for the purpose of transferring wealth.
For 50 years a majority of Americans could not see the difference in the confiscation of property and government compassion. Dan contributed to this. In a century in which socialists killed more people than all the wars combined a newsman actually belived that socialism was the best way to spread comppassion, by force if necessary. He was a cheerleader for thieves and killers with a free speech half hour on TV.
MSM has been creating the news for over 30 years, they didn't just begin doing it. The difference now is that outlets like FR exist. They can't get away with it anymore. That's what Rather is upset about.
Not so much fear, as panic that they've been found out and things will never again be the same.
News readers are as dumb as rocks.
"All of this creates a bigger atmosphere of fear in newsrooms," Rather said."
It better put some fear in them. I'm not sure what these people would do for a living if they couldn't be news casters. ( maybe, POLITICS)
Liberals interview each other, and they wonder why the MSM is irrelevant.
He didn't say what he REALLY thinks, which is that the internet has KILLED the news business as it used to be.
The Pajamahadeen and many others like us get the stories out there that the MSM doesn't want us to know.
I'm COMPLETELY CONVINCED that if it were not for the internet, the flooded school bus picture would have NEVER been seen by the masses. The MSM HATES the internet and the power we now have to find out things they don't want us to know!
Everyone does this to one degree or another. To expect anything else is naive and utopian.
Then they should state their worldviews up front instead of continually telling us they have no bias.
True...but this is the essence of politics. You're deceiving yourself if you believe otherwise. There are genuine political and philosophical differences among people. All sides think they're right and justify whatever it is they do to gain power.
He was a socialist that planned to deceive America so that central government would overcome state's rights for the purpose of transferring wealth.
True in essence but way, way over the top. He didn't believe in laissez faire. He believed that wealth transfer was a necessary and good modification of market distribution.
For 50 years a majority of Americans could not see the difference in the confiscation of property and government compassion. Dan contributed to this
True. Now it's a very substantial minority. And of course they don't see it the way you do. They believe that much property is obtained illegally and immorally and, regardless of that, that there are higher values than ownership.
Dan contributed to this. In a century in which socialists killed more people than all the wars combined a newsman actually belived that socialism was the best way to spread comppassion, by force if necessary. He was a cheerleader for thieves and killers with a free speech half hour on TV.
Why would you expect a majority view to not have representatives among journalists? As for thieves and killers and their supporters let he who is innocent cast the first stone.
True...but this is the essence of politics. You're deceiving yourself if you believe otherwise. There are genuine political and philosophical differences among people. All sides think they're right and justify whatever it is they do to gain power.
He was a socialist that planned to deceive America so that central government would overcome state's rights for the purpose of transferring wealth.
True in essence but way, way over the top. He didn't believe in laissez faire. He believed that wealth transfer was a necessary and good modification of market distribution.
For 50 years a majority of Americans could not see the difference in the confiscation of property and government compassion. Dan contributed to this
True. Now it's a very substantial minority. And of course they don't see it the way you do. They believe that much property is obtained illegally and immorally and, regardless of that, that there are higher values than ownership.
Dan contributed to this. In a century in which socialists killed more people than all the wars combined a newsman actually belived that socialism was the best way to spread comppassion, by force if necessary. He was a cheerleader for thieves and killers with a free speech half hour on TV.
Why would you expect a majority view to not have representatives among journalists? As for thieves and killers and their supporters let he who is innocent cast the first stone.
The Old Media is dead. Long live the New Media.
They should. Maybe the Internet will force them to do so. But I doubt it. People of all political persuasions seem to think they have special and unique access to "the truth". And there's the market value of claiming "objectivity". Money. Never underestimate its power.
We would have caught you in your lies then also.
How very true!
LOL that's funny! I'll repeat the tag line of a FRiend of mine. "My give-a-damn is busted"
Great! Your stuff was a hit--more exciting than the game, anyway.
You mean like the "truth" that Broussard's coworker's mother died because the federal response wasn't quick enough?"All of this creates a bigger atmosphere of fear in newsrooms,"
. . . and rightly so. Journalists being afraid to lie would be a good thing.
Not the category-4 hurricane that hit NO - the category 6 one that hit Bush when the TV journalists started spinning halftruths about the "slow" federal response.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.