Do staff members of NPR stations have an annual gathering, a primal "freedom of SCREECH!" gathering they can attend? You know, like, for balance and reorientation to the real world?
The people who control the big commercial media machines like Ted Turner, Pinch Shulzberger, Eisner. Murdock...they all have a vested self-interest in fanning the fires of political controversy since they sell ads to both political parties. However they also make money from foreign outlets that sometimes conflict with our national interests
Everybody has the right to tell me how to live here in Texas but the only people that I actually have to listen to are the ones in the government with guns who can lock us up in jail cells and pay me my government pension, If I don't like what they tell me to do, I vote for something who thinks more like I do and tell my gripes to cyberspace
I love living here in Texas. I'm retired military with a government pension and chose Texas to live rather than anywhere else. It's less expensive living here than back in Connecticut where I enlisted and I have a big Olympic size swimming pool at the Fort Hood gym to use, and Fort Hood's hospital for me and my wife's health care.
Social liberals and big government progressives. Meaning they are not true liberals. Limited federal government and state rights. That's all we need to be the freest and most prosperous nation in the world. The problem is everyone wants to tell others how to live. That is not freedom when government or a individual does it. Some say states could trample a man's rights, but by local vote there is more accountability and you have 49 states to vote with your feet. And 50 labs to experiment in.
@Ulansananelan how can people live in texas actually quite cheaply and with the most freedom than most liberal states. the taxes arent as much and the standard of living is quite low cuz of it. its a state where you work what you want out of your life. not like liberal states where you can depend on welfare and the state to take care of you. its the way everyone should live, depend only on yourself not on anyone else.
@LothairApoclyane he is saying that there is no such thing as liberal media... and that it's all conservative media. And that NPR is the only thing close to liberal media (it's perceived as liberal media) yet it's still constrained... I think that's what the man is trying to say... that the PERCEPTION OF THE LEFT - RIGHT MEDIA PARADIGM IS AN ILLUSION.
@TheCannonofMohammed Your assumption is that your government is evil and that private corporations are some kind of fluffy angelic fairies who fly around on Christmas Eve granting wishes to stupid people. Are you a multi-millionaire? It is unlikely, so you are in fact arguing for your own continued slavery. Well done.
Many scholars have suggested that Fascism is merely a form of radical centrism because of its capacity to marginalize everything else that is not Fascist,as extreme(indeed,the Italian Fascists claimed to be of a 'third way' from both socialism & capitalism.)
News that is ideological by definition has to involve containment and restrictions because narrow or purist ideologies of any stripe filter out anything ostensibly that could dilute or water down this purity of thought.
With the shift to explicitly partisan news outlets like Fox News, the purfification process has been in full swing.
I'd contend that the corporate press by definition is intrinsically ideological with a preponderance of global marketshare divided between six media giants.
This makes overt partisanship virtually moot considering that there's hardly a difference between how supposedly partisan liberal bastions like The New York Times report on war and how overtly partisan outlets like Fox & MSNBC report on war:'embedded' from a striclty US perspective & from a top down vantage.
You did not have a purist form of ideologically pronounced news in the 1980's or 1970's because of objective standards of network tv news and the fairness doctrine rule in broadcasting.
The elimination of Fairness helped lead to the rise of Rush Limbaugh in radio and set the path for the birth of Fox News in the 1990's.
Previously, news networks and newspapers hid their agendas. Now some of these agendas are blatantly on the table (Fox News, MSNBC).
I made the distinction between media outles like the Times & 'overtly partisan outlets' like Fox & MSNBC..."
The point is that in the institutional analysis it's both empirically counterfactual and logically problematic for a corporate,for-profit,private enterprize to function from an anticorporate,labor class,consumer rights,public interest agenda,regardless of how more or less heavy-handed their editorial process(which historically was a mere distintion in 'white' & 'grey' propaganda.)
You know what's getting really old? Listening to the left and right shout names at each other and acting like each has "The Answer." It's a fake, unrealistic argument that's getting us nowhere. In fact, it's putting us back in the Stone Age!!!
Chomsky an o should go buy some land and try their theories out.
meanwhile, i would suggest to all willing to challenge their beliefs in Chomsky to read a book called 'the law'. written in 1850, and only 50 something pages long. it is an excellent piece and should not take much longer than an hour to read.
if you want to focus on the economics side of things. 'economics in one lesson' by Henry Hazlitt. THE BEST economics book ever
@herbzilla11 it will show you that when chomsky talks of being a left-anarchist, then points the 'left' he usually fails to mention that the majority of them were for laissez-faire capitalism and were very opposed to socialism
as Rothbard correctly points out, 'socialism tries to achieve liberal end, with conservative (old meaning) means'. this includes chomsky's syndicalism as this leaves property rights ambiguous.
think for yourself, don't just bandwagon with Chomsky.
"when chomsky talks of being a left-anarchist, then points the 'left' he usually fails to mention that the majority of them were for laissez-faire capitalism and were very opposed to socialism"
You are performing an incorrect analysis of the situation.
Chomsky does not talk of being a Left-Anarchist, and he does not 'point' to anyone. He simple makes observations based on historical events. For example he correctly identifies that fact that in the course of human history (CONT)
(CONT) when ever people attempt to institute laissez-faire capitalism is always falls flat on its face. With out regulation market forces cause markets to fluctuate inevitable leading to deep depressions. Additionally with no regulation the best interest of the population is not well served and the populous is often taken advantage of bye private interests and violent insurgencies inevitable ensue.
History shows that laissez-faire capitalism simply does not work.
@herbzilla11 i think this is largely incorrect. perhaps you're thinking of the great depression where it is beleived (incorrectly) that we had to spend our way out of it? Youtube 'Thomas woods 1920 depression' if so.
i beleive this is a problem with chomsky. there are various positions in economics that say regulation = better economy. but no regulation is best. sound extreme? ..well, think, as long as the law is being upheld, the short-falls are usually due to lack of community. (CONT)
"i think this is largely incorrect. perhaps you're thinking of the great depression"
no, I am thinking of 100% of the instances in human history in which people tried laissez-faire capitalism.
It did cause the great depression, but it also caused the economic crisis + exploitations of the people and resulting socialist revolutions in Russia and and mexico as well.
When you don't regulate anything, the rich exploit the poor, the economy tanks, and the poor revolt. (CONT)
"beleived (incorrectly) that we had to spend our way out of it?"
We did spend our way out of it
Don't be fooled bye Revisionist history + Ayn Rand worship
We have tried no regulation. A lack of regulation got us into the mes we are in today. The flaw in the no regulation system is that is fails to acknowledge that corporate entities never hesitate to make risky investments that threaten stability of the entire economy.
The are under no obligation to care about the big picture.
@herbzilla11 You cannot spend your way out of a recession. it doesnt work!
and the mess we are in today? this was due to alan greenspan lowering interest rates below their natural market level causing people to spend recklessly.
i don't worship ayn rand either. and you can't just say 'Don't be fooled bye Revisionist history'. don't be fooled by economics propganda. keynesian theory is equivilant to intelligent design in biology, except it is accepted by mainstream sadly!
@herbzilla11 "The flaw in the no regulation system is that is fails to acknowledge that corporate entities never hesitate to make risky investments that threaten stability of the entire economy."
did you ever try and think this one through? .. the banks only did so because they were promised by the state that if they failed, they'd be bailed out by tax money. and corporation did so because they were getting easy money from these banks!
i can give you some good YT vids on this if you want?
@CytherLynx did you never stop to wonder why insurance companies were destroyed? The banks were only a part of the problem, and it had nothing to do with them thinking they were going to be bailed out.
@herbzilla11 how does a corporation a private corporation at that, threaten the entire economy of a government? it cant. that makes no sense at all. a lack of regulation of the government got us into the mess we are into today, not of private business. blaiming private business is not doing anything, they are there to make money get used to it. and being pro-business doesnt mean im enslaved it means im a hard worker and does the best i can. you are enslaved.
@nintendude60 what got us into this mess was the deregulation of vital areas of business (mainly the markets and lending banks) this gave these businesses the ability to chase short term profit in exchange for long term stability, If the government had been stronger and not let the banks lend to people who couldnt afford it in the name of chasing profits and speculating, the inevitable crash (and it is inevitable, thats just market economics) would have been nowhere near as bad.
@AllMyFriends are you stupid?? the government made a law that FORCED THE BANKS TO LEND OUT HIGH RISK LOANS.. please please do some actual research and dont copy and paste junk.
@nintendude60 can you give me a source for that law (a trusted source like a newspaper article)? Banks were deregulated further under the Bush administration and even before then during the Reagan/Thatcher era. and the credit crunch started then under the pro-business Republicans and New Labour in the UK.
also if you look up the Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1998, you will see that this act did the opposite of what you claim the government did... this was under Clinton, so no democrat bias here. please back up your statements with facts.
@AllMyFriends if you look up what was passed in 2006 by the democratic held congress you will see they did exactly as i have mentioned previously. passing bills that forced banks to lend out high risk loans. or just use common sense. your a bank would you wana lend out a loan to someone you knew couldnt pay it back? um no! thats stupid. your losing money. you want that interest. so either way.. you need to do some research
@nintendude60 Hey, let's make a fortune off those high risk loans and slap a triple A rating on it then sell it as a derivative no one understands. Don't worry, it's not like Republicans will ever talk about it. Poor, poor banks that got sucker punched by the government in your imaginary world.
@baigandine yoo your an idiot. the government forced these banks to do these things learn the facts. the banks lost money idiot. thats why they crashed idiot.
@herbzilla11 We spent deeper into a bottomless hole. The Federal Reserve Bank is almost 100 years old so I am not sure what qualifies as "no regulation" in your book. Check your facts and educate yourself. A fool and their money will go their separate ways, but when fools get to spend other people's money, that's just fucking criminal. Ayn Rand may be a bit too laissez-faire but Milton Friedman was brilliant and we would do well to pay heed to Friedman, Hazlitt, Hayek and von Mises.
@herbzilla11 Like most lower people, you want a 'country' that agrees with you.But, unfortunately you totally neglect the rules of 'reality'. Most slaves resent those who will not give in to slavery. If you want to be a slave,you obviously don't want freedom, then you are in the right place. Sometimes, when we are losers,it's not society, not the government, not our family, not our race,not our religion, .....but rather the man in the mirror. You should look in the mirror, it's ugly!
@herbzilla11 also. how does Chomsky reconcile with the fact that, regulation requires a state, so does welfare and healthcare and all the other institutions he is in support for. yet he advocates anarchy?
i do think Chomsky has A LOT of good points, but he lacks consistency with these things. for we have no choice to pay tax and this goes against liberty.
@CytherLynx His definition of anarchy is: "Challenge institutions to prove that their domination is warranted." Something like that. So he's totally for institutions that are dominating if they are providing useful functions that can't be done any other way.
@tstruss912 but this can lead to mob rule if principles are not adhered too. for i could disagree, most others agree, and due to me being in a minority, i have lost liberty in the process. even if i challenge, i am a minority.
perfect liberty is impossible since due to my very existence. BUT more importantly, the majority can be completely incorrect
3 ppl on an island. Arron, bob, carter. Arron makes a fishing rod. bob & carter say it is theirs. majority = incorrect. natural law = correct
@CytherLynx Total anarchy or classical communism would only work in a computer model, I'm sure. But, we should move toward that end more because that's what people want, according to polls. Using your analogy here's how I think it should go: all three own the island equally and if one of them produces something alone then it belongs to them; if they all produce something together then it belongs to all of them; and if somebody tries to steal a fishing rod then they get beat in the head with it.
Why would the left media want to censor Prof. Chomsky. Had he not been born, there would be no members of the left media and we'd have totalitarian nazi-like propaganda headed by fox news
@mikey3k , Public television is bailed out by the taxpayer. We need to cut the apron strings and let them swim on their own. If they fail, they werent producing a good product. If other TV & radio can do it, so can THEY.
"Public television is bailed out by the taxpayer."
If I were an English teacher I would slap you with "WC" for your poor word choice.
They are not 'bailed out' in any way.
We live in a free market society meaning that ratings as apposed to impartiality/quality are what the various news outlets focus on.
I think that it is inarguable that we as a people benefit from the use public money to support at least 1 news outlet that is free of influence from economic forces.
Fox does indeed make money but at the tax payers expense.
Making money is there only concern, and their business model is to saturate the population with disinformation & create a cultural zeitgeist of extreme political and idealogical polarization
It is a very successful business model, but it does the people of the united stated no favors.
It is not all difficult to use peoples psychology to take advantage of them.
This is why publicly funded news outlets are critical to maintain.
@herbzilla11 , Fox News is pretty much the only conservative TV station out there in a world of NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc. It is the only voice of conservatism and blows away the competition. If CNN or ABC can make it on their own, why can't NPR ? Why does my tax money have to fund them ? That would be like you funding Fox News. You wouldnt want your tax money funding Bill O'Reilly, would you ?
They make money bye using peoples psychology to take advantage of them.
There is a natural inclination towards tribalism and hate and anger and prejudice. This is what makes it easy for the leaders of countries like North Korea to brain wash millions of people, or the leaders of the Taliban to convince a 16 year old kid to run into a crowded restaurant with a bomb on his chest.
Fox and talk radio make money in a way that is damaging to our collective society.
He made his reputation in linguistics and then, extremely impressed with his own achievements in this field, felt free to venture into other areas which he pompously inundates with streams of uninformed opinions.
Corporations = private tyrannies that put the intere$ts of their share holders above the public trust, often have DEEP right-wing $ political ties, work closely with govt to sell The Big Lies, are NOT liberal/democratic in structure/intent, and to a disturbing degree have all three branches of the US govt bought & paid for.
The US has a phony, brainwashed representative democracy, and typically conducts hegemony/wars of aggression under equally phony premises with fascist ulterior agendas.
@sauvesean So....people need chicken soup letters by their name to be qualified to TALK about anything? I can't talk about economics because I'm not an economist? Though, I'm forced to deal with economics and its effects everyday as a person. I can't talk about a philosophy book I just read, because I'm not a "philosopher"? Chomsky can't say anything valuable to us because he should just "stick to Linguistics"? Silly thinking you have there, if it's thought at all.
i encounter this problem every time i talk to anyone who listens to most main stream media outlets as their sole source of news, they can not stand listening to an explanation of a thought about anything for more than 30 seconds lol
@GreenChurchReject Dictatorships vary. There are right and left dictatorships. Marcos in the Philippines and Pinochet in Chile and Franco in Spain were all Right Wing dictators backed by the US.
In fact, the right breeds dictatorship because right wing thought is authoritarian by nature. The right loves censorship through its religious fanatical arm-the religious right-moves to boycott and attack tv shows and movies as well as the news media.
@MultiSmartass1 you're a moron. the right are the ones who ended slavery and gave blacks civil rights. it's actually the liberals who are the ones who want more authority and control over people. Socialism - is a form of control. Why do you think democrats are so gun ho on having more government? cause it for more freedom? you liberals are so fucking stupid. look at history you dumb fucks, liberals were originally racist, and turned cause they wanted to demonize the republicans.
@kingre7 The right wing has never had any interest in civil rights for black people or other people of color for that matter.
They would have been just fine with segeregation under the law continuing until today.
All you need to do is look at the Tea Party and their often subrosa racist rhetoric to see that the right are a collection of klansmen, Nazis and old fashioned segregationists.
The US has never had a socialist government and doesn't have one now.
@kingre7 you're a little confused here my friend, the liberal party at the time was the republicans, while the democrats were the conservative party. So in a sense, you're right that the republicans were the ones who were for human rights, but they were the liberals of the era. I mean think about it logically, today where do you see the majority of conservatives? The south. Where was slavery most prominent? The South.
"where do you see the majority of conservatives? The south. Where was slavery most prominent? The South."
Cons most prominent in non gov dependent areas. It has always been small government, liberty first (over egalitarianism) Christian people that have fought against slavery. Your theory doesn't gibe with reality if you spend even five minutes reading some of their old letters, speeches, etc. Leftists want more power, the right doesn't. Pretty simple.
@MultiSmartass1 the republicans also almost nominated the first FULL black man - colin powell to run against bill clinton, yet the democrats chose a HALF black man and always use race to demonize the right even though the right has always been for blacks. Martin Luther King Jr. was a republican and backed by republicans. KKK members were originally full of democrats. And the republicans were also known as the 'party for the black'. So smartass, know you history before you talk... typical liberal
@kingre7 You need to know that the Republican and Democratic parties weren't always like they are today, they changed their ideologies throughout their long history. Originally, the Republican party mainly represented the interests of northern, urban businessmen and manufacturers, and to a certain extent working people, and the Democrats represented the southern land owners. Later on, the main division in American politics became social liberals and progressives vs conservative liberals, ...
both parties having a conservative and a liberal wing. Since the 60's, most liberals moved to the Democratic Pary and conservatives to the GOP, thought there still are conservative Dems and liberal Republicans. For the record, it was mostly the liberals, progressives, leftists (mostly Republicans back then) etc that supported the civil rights movement while the right wing Democrats were opposing it. Just think about it for a minute dude, conservative means you want to keep things the old way,...
... while progressivism means supporting social change in favor of more fairness and equality, so it's kinda obvious who would support or oppose that kind of movements. To the right of conservatives there are the reactionaries, who would like to draw society back to what it was like in an earlier period (many people who call themselves conservatives today should actually properly be called reactionaries btw),
and fascism (Nazism included) which mixes reactionary ideas with left-wing elements (revolutionary rhetoric, admiration for modern industry...) but is still usually considered far right because of its extreme anti-egulitarian stances and other things. I'm telling u that in a friendly way, so that you can now go back to lecturing the dumbass liberals about history but without manking a fool of yourself anymore ;)
@MultiSmartass1 and guess which party starts more race wars and tensions? you got it the liberals! Liberals always use race... and who is really racist? Democrats and liberals. You're so blinded by the media which focus on color and race to demonize the right. Have you actually watched this youtube video? liberals... don't know much about anything.
You know what is throwing off so many of these people responding to you? It is your use of the world liberal to describe leftists. If you gave a speech written by JFK (a liberal) but without his name on it, to 1000 college kids, they'd guess it was written by a Republican. There are no more real Liberals in the D party. It has been taken over by leftists and we should distinguish the difference between the words. There's NO diff between our D party & Europe's socialist parties.
@GreenChurchReject you are dumb fascism is corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy or ultra right neocons
Thanks for this presentation. What he said is what the whole country knows. The only people who are not aware of it are the liberal elites at Harvard, and Yale, and other worthless schools that fail to teach truth but only teach opinions. Ever since Kennedy brought these people in government, our country has been in serious trouble. Bud
@Chrisfre I thought, taken to the extreme, that the left was economically fascist, communist and socially anarchist, and that the right was economically libertarian, capitalist and socially fascist.
@Chrisfre Maybe we have different views on fascism.
Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy. Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong
I wasn't corporations that built gulags and concentration camps. It was a big State. It isn't corporations that today have the largest concentration camp in human history (North Korea) or threaten genocide against other countries and build nuclear bombs (Iran) This is far more worth being concerned about than some greedy corporation.
,you would like to hear me,as a old man who passed 3 war,who provaded himselve food to Gaza,who lived,sort of,in the west bank,who learned History in the university and have a lot of Palestinian friends,and etc. but just to ask,from what you are so afraid
n8glenn,hello again. it seems that you blocked me,am I right? well,that is a shame,but also a proof that the truth isn't intresting you. you don't want to hear anything that is against your "Turkish side of the family" point of view,and that is sad. if you were seeking the truth
I have lived in america all my life...chomsky is liar about many things, this one in particular...there is a huge range in the way media presents things here...you can find far left and far right stuff and everything in between
@n8glenn If you actually said that real wages adjusted for inflation, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. That's redundant. Real wages incorporate the real value, so they are immediately adjusted for inflation. Youre using economic jargon you yourself don't understand. You also don't realize that it is HOUSEHOLD income that have fallen, and this is because households have become smaller. Real wages, both the income and the compensation together, have gone up.
@GoingGoingGalt Being redundant isn't the same thing as not knowing what a word means. I was being redundant because I wasn't sure that YOU understand what real wages mean, that's why I used a subordinate clause separated by commas. I didn't want to just call you an idiot because you're stating something which just about everyone who's studied the subject knows is false.
@n8glenn Youre attributing your knowledge to a fallacy known as appeal to authority. You assume that enough people who seem to be smart believe it, then it must be true. Maybe the issue is that you only listen to a specific group of scholars that would facilitate a response. Remember that Chomsky isn't an economist. But Thomas Sowell, who asserts real wages are going up, is. As is Walter Williams. And Milton Friedman. And Bryan Caplan, who gives a survey where the majority of economists agree
@GoingGoingGalt Well, looks like you agree with me in one regard, because you also are quoting authorities to prove your point, which is also an appeal to authority. I'm not telling you that Chomsky's words is proof, I'm telling you that he isn't the only one who makes that claim, in fact I've never heard anyone make the counter claim other than you, so if he's wrong, it's not like he's coming out of left field or lying. Obviously he's stating a view that many people agree with.
@n8glenn No, listen carefully to what I said, as well as what I didn't say. I never said that because Sowell, Williams, Fridman and Caplan, therefore its true. I'm telling you that your experiences are deceiving you into assuming that EVERYONE thinks that wages are falling. But there have been studies and surveys done on this, which shows that empirically speaking, real compensation has risen.
@GoingGoingGalt Yes, I know how to read. You made the exact same argument I made. If there is empirical data stating that real wages have risen for average americans (not the top income bracket -- that HAS risen astronomically), then show me.
@n8glenn But since I have provided empirical data, this means I have NOT made the exact same argument you made. In fact, I actually made the precise opposite, both in claim and in method. You use hearsay, I use fact
@GoingGoingGalt No, you didn't use fact, first you made an appeal to authority, just like I did, then you provided a link to a website, that's not a fact, that's a website, and I subsequently provided a link to a website which directly contradicts yours.
@n8glenn It doesn't contradict at all. Like a typical noneconomist, you fail to realize that income isn't all the workers receive. Real compensation takes into account both the income AND any other benefit the worker receives, calculated by its dollar value. All in all, your data is incomplete
Oh, please. I get enough of these childish antics at work. Don't stoop to their level.
@GoingGoingGalt How do you know their data is incomplete, but the data you like isn't? Maybe the graph on your website is skewed because it reflects the vast wealth earned by the top income bracket, did you ever consider that? There are a million ways to play with data, the point is, Chomsky isn't lying, he's stating a mainstream opinion, and you aren't the only one who can point to a graph which backs up your opinion.
@n8glenn Ok, it seems Im not making this clear enough. Real Compensation includes all Real Wages, but Real Wages does not include all Real Compensation. This is a definition. That's how I know. Your site only mentions wages. Mine mentions compensation. And we know this isn't just the top income bracket because you can see how its strongly correlated with productivity (ie output), which means it is because of rising worker productivity, not greedy rich people, that compensation has gone up
@GoingGoingGalt What I mean is that if you include the vast increases in compensation at the top, then of course it's going to skew the average compensation upward! if you look at the compensation for the vast majority of americans it has been in decline, which makes sense, because income has flowed upward and that leaves less for people at the bottom. Not to mention the fact that unions have been weakened or destroyed, that has an effect you know.
@GoingGoingGalt That's right, we can't say that chomsky is lying just because some people out there disagree with him, and of course there's never been a single human being who's never been wrong in their lives, but Chomsky is a highly respected intellectual, and also one of the most hated intellectuals.
@GoingGoingGalt Btw, the main point of the article is that wages have been stagnant since 2000, I think that benefits were around already back in 2000. If you want to talk about health care costs going through the roof, then that's a separate discussion, because health care costs have gone up, but that doesn't represent a gain for workers, that represents a loss for those who don't have benefits.
@n8glenn But your specifically talking about ONLY health care as a reason why you think compensation hasn't increased. You fail to realize that workers get other non cash benefits other than health care, and even if health care is getting more expensive, it still doesn't change the fact that compensation is going up. It's simply an anecdote you are using to steer the attention away from this fact.
@GoingGoingGalt Come on, you really believe that workers benefit from the fact that their health care is getting more expensive? Surely you're joking.
@n8glenn Come on, you really expect me to believe that statistics are just opinions, but looking around your particular vicinity are an accurate measure of how well workers are doing throughout the country? You must be kidding.
@n8glenn There is also data pointing to the fall of expenditures on food and other products, and the fall of how much disposable income is used on these products.
@GoingGoingGalt Ok, if you really want to believe that americans in general are more prosperous right now than they were in the past, that they have more money, more jobs, a higher standard of living, more wealth, etc. Then that's your call.
@n8glenn This isn't just an opinion. This is fact. Americans are far more compensated now than in the past. That's something you can't deny, and it something you can't disprove. Coping out by making this sound like "belief" is a joke. That's something Chomsky can't deny. I know you love Chomsky so much you can't face knowing a flaw in his character, however Chomsky either made the irresponsible call of confusing wages for all benefits to workers (which is untrue), or being blatantly dishonest.
@GoingGoingGalt A fact? Because you choose to believe one website and ignore another? Because you choose to believe one expert and ignore all the others? No. It's not a fact, it's your opinion, which isn't backed up by anything, certainly not in the real world. Just look around you and you can clearly see that REAL compensation for workers has been going down for a long time. It does not benefit workers if health care costs go through the roof and their health care plans rise accordingly.
@n8glenn Authority really means a lot to you, but let me let you in on a secret: statistics don't lie. They may be based on surveys that are statistically insignificant, but the burden will have to be on you to show that. The fact is both our statistics are correct, its just that real wages are less inclusive than real compensation. I feel like I have said this a million times, but I'm saying it again. There's what you gut tells you, and then there is what is affirmed time and time again.
@GoingGoingGalt You value authority too, you certainly quoted a few. Ok, so you believe that if health care costs go through the roof, and people have to get insurance to afford it, while their wages are falling in all other respects, that they are somehow benefiting from that, I don't. I think they're just getting ripped off by the health care system which is privatized and run for profit.
@n8glenn Basically, here's the scoop. Technically speaking, wages have been falling, but this is an out-of-context assertion. While the true value of wages has fallen, all other benefits have risen by a greater amount than what was lost. Got it yet? The fact that you think you can get away with picking and choosing what you believe in is nothing short of deception.
@GoingGoingGalt Ok, you just stated that Chomsky was telling the truth. He believes, like me, that having to pay insane costs for health care doesn't do workers any good. He believes, like I do, that the hollowing out of our industrial infrastructure, the massive layoffs all over the country, the shipping of our jobs overseas, the vast increase in income inequality where most of the money is going to 1% and the rest of the country is getting poorer, is not a good thing.
@n8glenn It was only partly true. It was done out of context, and so was either uneducated and deviously deceptive. Either way, it was about as true as saying that the sun sets in the west and leaving out entirely how it rises. A man as educated as Chomsky could not have been making a mistake. He was deceiving his audience by not giving them the full picture. Same thing to you in reference to outsourcing and zero sum game, both myths that have been debunked time and time again.
@GoingGoingGalt It's not partly true that 48 million americans are now in poverty, it's not partly true that workers actual take home pay is less than it used to be, while they receive the same health care as before, it's not partly true that our industrial infrastructure has been dismantled and our jobs have been shipped overseas and are not coming back.
@n8glenn So, unless you can provide one study that shows real COMPENSATION (ie wages plus benefits) has been going down, not up, you have no leg to stand on. Youre childish and deceptive attempts at reinterpreting my views won't get you anywhere. So provide me with the above, or get lost.
@GoingGoingGalt I already answered you on that point. I don't consider skyrocketing health care costs to be a "benefit" to workers, I'm only counting things that actually BENEFIT workers.
@n8glenn Again, show me one study showing that real compensation is falling. Unless you can, everything you say is either conjecture or out-of-context drivel.
@GoingGoingGalt I already did. The only answer you could muster was that my data did not take into account skyrocketing health care costs, as if the high costs of health insurance were somehow benefiting workers. They do not. In fact, the skyrocketing health care costs have actually pushed many seniors on fixed incomes into poverty according to the latest census.
@n8glenn No you haven't. You haven't given a single study showing that real compensation (that is wages+benefits) is falling. You only gave me what you thought or what you "consider". Putting this obvious fact in the open, I don't give a shit what you think, only what you can prove.
Nothing is self-evident. On study. One citation. Or get lost
@GoingGoingGalt I already did, and I'm not going anywhere. I showed you a graph which shows the real wages of workers being stagnant or declining, and you countered by saying that that does not include health insurance, which has become many times more expensive than it needs to be because it's run for profit, not for the benefit of the workers. Why do you think that state governments are running out of money? Because tax revenue is falling because WAGES are falling. Sorry.
@GoingGoingGalt Now you're just arguing over words, not facts on the ground. I know exactly what you mean and i'm telling you I disagree with your view that workers are getting more than they used to -- health insurance companies might be, but workers are not, and that is what Chomsky MEANS! isn't that obvious?
@n8glenn If you really think this is only about words, you have totally lost me. That's like saying a quart of milk and a gallon of milk is the same thing. Except for, of course, the milk containing more. What Chomsky means? And he granted you the role of his mind reading representative? Either Chomsky meant just wages, then he's only presenting an out-of-context statement. If he meant total compensation, then he is flat out wrong
@n8glenn Hmm, why are governments running out of money? Maybe because they are raising expenditures. God! I can't believe this, I feel like I'm trying to teach a retarded child how to ride a bicycle. All this is obvious. Completely obvious. You have to be either clueless or extremely gullible to think otherwise.
@GoingGoingGalt Wow, that sounds horrible, you poor thing, but aren't you just assuming that the answer is something else because you have a hard time accepting the truth, that when we took away all the jobs, and weakened the unions, etc, that the vast majority of people in this country are now making less money, as the recent census conclusively proves?
@n8glenn You can claim that whatever you say is the truth, but without a single shred of evidence to support you, its just empty rhetoric. Show me one study that shows the words "Real Compensation" in place of "Real Wages" (Any economist will tell you that indeed these are different things), and shows compensation falling over time. It's very simple. The fact that you are not doing this shows you know you have no leg to stand on anymore.
Compensation had not increased in the last 50 years, and wages have not increased in the last 40 years, and the cost of living increases every single year.
The wealth of the nation become more and more concentrated in a smaller and smaller portion of the population and the general population suffers.
@herbzilla11 There's what you claim to be true, and then there is hard core data. Show me one study that shows real compensation has fallen in the past fifty years
@GoingGoingGalt But hey, I'm not an economist and I didn't claim to be. I do, however, understand the spoken english language, and I've heard many, many people, some of them quite erudite and educated, make the same claim that Chomsky makes about wages falling for americans over the past few decades. I have NEVER heard anyone, other than you, claim the opposite, maybe my problem is that I'm listening to respected scholars and not you. Maybe they all have it wrong and only you know the truth.
@pem82sox You might be right, you can find far left people saying the wars should continue for liberal reasons, and far right people saying the wars should continue for conservative reasons, so yeah, that's a big, contentious debate. Why should we keep doing exactly what we're doing now? How should we excuse it?
He never said liberal media was more openly propagandist or that they represented worse ideas, just that their content is narrower. And, in fact, he's right. The further right you go the greater variety of ideas you find and the more likely you are to find air time given to opposing views.
Wrong! The further Right you go the more narrow the range of info. Conservative rarely deviates from the conventional 30 second sound bite. The purpose of the Right wing media is to make people stupid.
Try Global Liberal . com peoples. legitimate media and news source for liberals
GlobalLiberal 3 months ago
Interesting that what seems like should be someone asking a question was edited off; it just starts with [I believe part of] Chomsky's response.
dblagbrough 3 months ago
I love America
MNgeneralfinance 6 months ago
Do staff members of NPR stations have an annual gathering, a primal "freedom of SCREECH!" gathering they can attend? You know, like, for balance and reorientation to the real world?
chernobylFarms 7 months ago
The people who control the big commercial media machines like Ted Turner, Pinch Shulzberger, Eisner. Murdock...they all have a vested self-interest in fanning the fires of political controversy since they sell ads to both political parties. However they also make money from foreign outlets that sometimes conflict with our national interests
Texasjim2007 7 months ago
Everybody has the right to tell me how to live here in Texas but the only people that I actually have to listen to are the ones in the government with guns who can lock us up in jail cells and pay me my government pension, If I don't like what they tell me to do, I vote for something who thinks more like I do and tell my gripes to cyberspace
Texasjim2007 7 months ago
@Texasjim2007 One question: Where exactly are these 'people who think more like you do'? Its rare nowadays to find a politician who actually thinks
Keinlicht 7 months ago
I love living here in Texas. I'm retired military with a government pension and chose Texas to live rather than anywhere else. It's less expensive living here than back in Connecticut where I enlisted and I have a big Olympic size swimming pool at the Fort Hood gym to use, and Fort Hood's hospital for me and my wife's health care.
Texasjim2007 7 months ago
Noam Chomsky you idiot just shut up and sit down.
vincentkjones1 7 months ago
Social liberals and big government progressives. Meaning they are not true liberals. Limited federal government and state rights. That's all we need to be the freest and most prosperous nation in the world. The problem is everyone wants to tell others how to live. That is not freedom when government or a individual does it. Some say states could trample a man's rights, but by local vote there is more accountability and you have 49 states to vote with your feet. And 50 labs to experiment in.
LokiScoutSniper 8 months ago
looool usa dont have real liberalism!
european conservatives are more liberal then american liberals!
usa is a sick conservative country!
please look texas WTF how can people life there haha
Ulansananelan 8 months ago
@Ulansananelan how can people live in texas actually quite cheaply and with the most freedom than most liberal states. the taxes arent as much and the standard of living is quite low cuz of it. its a state where you work what you want out of your life. not like liberal states where you can depend on welfare and the state to take care of you. its the way everyone should live, depend only on yourself not on anyone else.
nintendude60 6 months ago
" the business of progressives is to go on making mistakes, the business of conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected." GK Chesterton
beradification 8 months ago
I'm wondering what he means by the conservative media and in what ways they're less constrained than the liberal end..
LothairApoclyane 8 months ago
@LothairApoclyane he is saying that there is no such thing as liberal media... and that it's all conservative media. And that NPR is the only thing close to liberal media (it's perceived as liberal media) yet it's still constrained... I think that's what the man is trying to say... that the PERCEPTION OF THE LEFT - RIGHT MEDIA PARADIGM IS AN ILLUSION.
rellobellotube 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EVERYONE SHOULD GOOGLE 'CHOMSKY WATCH': WHAT A GREAT SITE TO DEBUNK CHOMSKY WITHOUT ANY ABILITY TO HAVE A VALID RETORT
WingThaiJ 9 months ago
NPR: Government controlled broadcasting. With funding come strings.
TheCannonofMohammed 10 months ago
@TheCannonofMohammed And with private funding there are no strings?
Rubashow 9 months ago
@TheCannonofMohammed Your assumption is that your government is evil and that private corporations are some kind of fluffy angelic fairies who fly around on Christmas Eve granting wishes to stupid people. Are you a multi-millionaire? It is unlikely, so you are in fact arguing for your own continued slavery. Well done.
jacksawild 6 months ago 19
liberals are like communists as conservatives are like fascists both are extreams of the political spectrum
dakotastevens85 10 months ago
@dakotastevens85
Many scholars have suggested that Fascism is merely a form of radical centrism because of its capacity to marginalize everything else that is not Fascist,as extreme(indeed,the Italian Fascists claimed to be of a 'third way' from both socialism & capitalism.)
thirdshift47 10 months ago
how are conservatives like nazis/
conservatives stand for the US and constitution and we the people. fucking Liberal Media
4everUSNavy 10 months ago
News that is ideological by definition has to involve containment and restrictions because narrow or purist ideologies of any stripe filter out anything ostensibly that could dilute or water down this purity of thought.
With the shift to explicitly partisan news outlets like Fox News, the purfification process has been in full swing.
MultiSmartass1 11 months ago
I'd contend that the corporate press by definition is intrinsically ideological with a preponderance of global marketshare divided between six media giants.
This makes overt partisanship virtually moot considering that there's hardly a difference between how supposedly partisan liberal bastions like The New York Times report on war and how overtly partisan outlets like Fox & MSNBC report on war:'embedded' from a striclty US perspective & from a top down vantage.
thirdshift47 11 months ago
@thirdshift47 No, there is a difference.
You did not have a purist form of ideologically pronounced news in the 1980's or 1970's because of objective standards of network tv news and the fairness doctrine rule in broadcasting.
The elimination of Fairness helped lead to the rise of Rush Limbaugh in radio and set the path for the birth of Fox News in the 1990's.
Previously, news networks and newspapers hid their agendas. Now some of these agendas are blatantly on the table (Fox News, MSNBC).
MultiSmartass1 11 months ago
I made the distinction between media outles like the Times & 'overtly partisan outlets' like Fox & MSNBC..."
The point is that in the institutional analysis it's both empirically counterfactual and logically problematic for a corporate,for-profit,private enterprize to function from an anticorporate,labor class,consumer rights,public interest agenda,regardless of how more or less heavy-handed their editorial process(which historically was a mere distintion in 'white' & 'grey' propaganda.)
thirdshift47 11 months ago
NPR won't carry Chomsky? Wow! He must be a real looney.
lakeeriejew 11 months ago
You know what's getting really old? Listening to the left and right shout names at each other and acting like each has "The Answer." It's a fake, unrealistic argument that's getting us nowhere. In fact, it's putting us back in the Stone Age!!!
NotTooLate2008 1 year ago
Chomsky an o should go buy some land and try their theories out.
meanwhile, i would suggest to all willing to challenge their beliefs in Chomsky to read a book called 'the law'. written in 1850, and only 50 something pages long. it is an excellent piece and should not take much longer than an hour to read.
if you want to focus on the economics side of things. 'economics in one lesson' by Henry Hazlitt. THE BEST economics book ever
warning: for rational people only.
CytherLynx 1 year ago
@CytherLynx ***chomsky and co
CytherLynx 1 year ago
@CytherLynx
"Chomsky an o should go buy some land and try their theories out."
The entire course of human events are what supports Chomsky theories.
There are no other people in history who use as much information/facts/data and history to generate and defend their positions as Chomsky.
Ignoring all of human history and choosing instead to believe a 150 year old 50 page book = for rational people only?
herbzilla11 1 year ago
@herbzilla11 it will show you that when chomsky talks of being a left-anarchist, then points the 'left' he usually fails to mention that the majority of them were for laissez-faire capitalism and were very opposed to socialism
as Rothbard correctly points out, 'socialism tries to achieve liberal end, with conservative (old meaning) means'. this includes chomsky's syndicalism as this leaves property rights ambiguous.
think for yourself, don't just bandwagon with Chomsky.
CytherLynx 1 year ago
@CytherLynx
"when chomsky talks of being a left-anarchist, then points the 'left' he usually fails to mention that the majority of them were for laissez-faire capitalism and were very opposed to socialism"
You are performing an incorrect analysis of the situation.
Chomsky does not talk of being a Left-Anarchist, and he does not 'point' to anyone. He simple makes observations based on historical events. For example he correctly identifies that fact that in the course of human history (CONT)
herbzilla11 1 year ago
@CytherLynx
(CONT) when ever people attempt to institute laissez-faire capitalism is always falls flat on its face. With out regulation market forces cause markets to fluctuate inevitable leading to deep depressions. Additionally with no regulation the best interest of the population is not well served and the populous is often taken advantage of bye private interests and violent insurgencies inevitable ensue.
History shows that laissez-faire capitalism simply does not work.
herbzilla11 1 year ago
@herbzilla11 i think this is largely incorrect. perhaps you're thinking of the great depression where it is beleived (incorrectly) that we had to spend our way out of it? Youtube 'Thomas woods 1920 depression' if so.
i beleive this is a problem with chomsky. there are various positions in economics that say regulation = better economy. but no regulation is best. sound extreme? ..well, think, as long as the law is being upheld, the short-falls are usually due to lack of community. (CONT)
CytherLynx 1 year ago
@CytherLynx
"i think this is largely incorrect. perhaps you're thinking of the great depression"
no, I am thinking of 100% of the instances in human history in which people tried laissez-faire capitalism.
It did cause the great depression, but it also caused the economic crisis + exploitations of the people and resulting socialist revolutions in Russia and and mexico as well.
When you don't regulate anything, the rich exploit the poor, the economy tanks, and the poor revolt. (CONT)
herbzilla11 1 year ago
@CytherLynx
"beleived (incorrectly) that we had to spend our way out of it?"
We did spend our way out of it
Don't be fooled bye Revisionist history + Ayn Rand worship
We have tried no regulation. A lack of regulation got us into the mes we are in today. The flaw in the no regulation system is that is fails to acknowledge that corporate entities never hesitate to make risky investments that threaten stability of the entire economy.
The are under no obligation to care about the big picture.
herbzilla11 1 year ago 7
@herbzilla11 You cannot spend your way out of a recession. it doesnt work!
and the mess we are in today? this was due to alan greenspan lowering interest rates below their natural market level causing people to spend recklessly.
i don't worship ayn rand either. and you can't just say 'Don't be fooled bye Revisionist history'. don't be fooled by economics propganda. keynesian theory is equivilant to intelligent design in biology, except it is accepted by mainstream sadly!
CytherLynx 1 year ago
@herbzilla11 "The flaw in the no regulation system is that is fails to acknowledge that corporate entities never hesitate to make risky investments that threaten stability of the entire economy."
did you ever try and think this one through? .. the banks only did so because they were promised by the state that if they failed, they'd be bailed out by tax money. and corporation did so because they were getting easy money from these banks!
i can give you some good YT vids on this if you want?
CytherLynx 1 year ago
@CytherLynx did you never stop to wonder why insurance companies were destroyed? The banks were only a part of the problem, and it had nothing to do with them thinking they were going to be bailed out.
fatmeteor 11 months ago
@fatmeteor watch?v=EgMclXX5msc
CytherLynx 11 months ago
@CytherLynx lazy
fatmeteor 11 months ago
@herbzilla11
watch?v=czcUmnsprQI
CytherLynx 11 months ago
@herbzilla11 how does a corporation a private corporation at that, threaten the entire economy of a government? it cant. that makes no sense at all. a lack of regulation of the government got us into the mess we are into today, not of private business. blaiming private business is not doing anything, they are there to make money get used to it. and being pro-business doesnt mean im enslaved it means im a hard worker and does the best i can. you are enslaved.
nintendude60 6 months ago
@nintendude60 what got us into this mess was the deregulation of vital areas of business (mainly the markets and lending banks) this gave these businesses the ability to chase short term profit in exchange for long term stability, If the government had been stronger and not let the banks lend to people who couldnt afford it in the name of chasing profits and speculating, the inevitable crash (and it is inevitable, thats just market economics) would have been nowhere near as bad.
AllMyFriends 5 months ago
@AllMyFriends are you stupid?? the government made a law that FORCED THE BANKS TO LEND OUT HIGH RISK LOANS.. please please do some actual research and dont copy and paste junk.
nintendude60 5 months ago
@nintendude60 can you give me a source for that law (a trusted source like a newspaper article)? Banks were deregulated further under the Bush administration and even before then during the Reagan/Thatcher era. and the credit crunch started then under the pro-business Republicans and New Labour in the UK.
AllMyFriends 5 months ago
@AllMyFriends ever heard of freddie mac and fannie mae? look those up. you will see what i mean.
nintendude60 5 months ago
also if you look up the Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1998, you will see that this act did the opposite of what you claim the government did... this was under Clinton, so no democrat bias here. please back up your statements with facts.
AllMyFriends 5 months ago
@AllMyFriends if you look up what was passed in 2006 by the democratic held congress you will see they did exactly as i have mentioned previously. passing bills that forced banks to lend out high risk loans. or just use common sense. your a bank would you wana lend out a loan to someone you knew couldnt pay it back? um no! thats stupid. your losing money. you want that interest. so either way.. you need to do some research
nintendude60 5 months ago
@nintendude60 Hey, let's make a fortune off those high risk loans and slap a triple A rating on it then sell it as a derivative no one understands. Don't worry, it's not like Republicans will ever talk about it. Poor, poor banks that got sucker punched by the government in your imaginary world.
baigandine 4 months ago
@baigandine yoo your an idiot. the government forced these banks to do these things learn the facts. the banks lost money idiot. thats why they crashed idiot.
nintendude60 4 months ago
@herbzilla11 We spent deeper into a bottomless hole. The Federal Reserve Bank is almost 100 years old so I am not sure what qualifies as "no regulation" in your book. Check your facts and educate yourself. A fool and their money will go their separate ways, but when fools get to spend other people's money, that's just fucking criminal. Ayn Rand may be a bit too laissez-faire but Milton Friedman was brilliant and we would do well to pay heed to Friedman, Hazlitt, Hayek and von Mises.
LeesolNinety 4 months ago
fntime 4 weeks ago
@herbzilla11 also. how does Chomsky reconcile with the fact that, regulation requires a state, so does welfare and healthcare and all the other institutions he is in support for. yet he advocates anarchy?
i do think Chomsky has A LOT of good points, but he lacks consistency with these things. for we have no choice to pay tax and this goes against liberty.
CytherLynx 1 year ago
@CytherLynx His definition of anarchy is: "Challenge institutions to prove that their domination is warranted." Something like that. So he's totally for institutions that are dominating if they are providing useful functions that can't be done any other way.
tstruss912 1 year ago
@tstruss912 but this can lead to mob rule if principles are not adhered too. for i could disagree, most others agree, and due to me being in a minority, i have lost liberty in the process. even if i challenge, i am a minority.
perfect liberty is impossible since due to my very existence. BUT more importantly, the majority can be completely incorrect
3 ppl on an island. Arron, bob, carter. Arron makes a fishing rod. bob & carter say it is theirs. majority = incorrect. natural law = correct
CytherLynx 1 year ago
@CytherLynx Total anarchy or classical communism would only work in a computer model, I'm sure. But, we should move toward that end more because that's what people want, according to polls. Using your analogy here's how I think it should go: all three own the island equally and if one of them produces something alone then it belongs to them; if they all produce something together then it belongs to all of them; and if somebody tries to steal a fishing rod then they get beat in the head with it.
tstruss912 1 year ago
yada yada yada jeez how much can you go on and on about nothing? Typical
cp1699 1 year ago
Why would the left media want to censor Prof. Chomsky. Had he not been born, there would be no members of the left media and we'd have totalitarian nazi-like propaganda headed by fox news
xtrmsprts 1 year ago
@xtrmsprts , thats because Fox News and talk radio make money. Theyre not bailed out like PBS and NPR
k3304 1 year ago
Comment removed
mikey3k 1 year ago
@k3304 PBS and NPR are PUBLIC television so they get PUBLIC funds. PUBLIC television and radio aren't made to make money. Are you slow?
mikey3k 1 year ago
@mikey3k , Public television is bailed out by the taxpayer. We need to cut the apron strings and let them swim on their own. If they fail, they werent producing a good product. If other TV & radio can do it, so can THEY.
k3304 1 year ago
@k3304
"Public television is bailed out by the taxpayer."
If I were an English teacher I would slap you with "WC" for your poor word choice.
They are not 'bailed out' in any way.
We live in a free market society meaning that ratings as apposed to impartiality/quality are what the various news outlets focus on.
I think that it is inarguable that we as a people benefit from the use public money to support at least 1 news outlet that is free of influence from economic forces.
herbzilla11 1 year ago
@herbzilla11 , if Fox News can make money so should NPR
k3304 1 year ago
@k3304
Fox does indeed make money but at the tax payers expense.
Making money is there only concern, and their business model is to saturate the population with disinformation & create a cultural zeitgeist of extreme political and idealogical polarization
It is a very successful business model, but it does the people of the united stated no favors.
It is not all difficult to use peoples psychology to take advantage of them.
This is why publicly funded news outlets are critical to maintain.
herbzilla11 1 year ago
@herbzilla11 , Fox News is pretty much the only conservative TV station out there in a world of NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc. It is the only voice of conservatism and blows away the competition. If CNN or ABC can make it on their own, why can't NPR ? Why does my tax money have to fund them ? That would be like you funding Fox News. You wouldnt want your tax money funding Bill O'Reilly, would you ?
k3304 1 year ago
@k3304
They make money bye using peoples psychology to take advantage of them.
There is a natural inclination towards tribalism and hate and anger and prejudice. This is what makes it easy for the leaders of countries like North Korea to brain wash millions of people, or the leaders of the Taliban to convince a 16 year old kid to run into a crowded restaurant with a bomb on his chest.
Fox and talk radio make money in a way that is damaging to our collective society.
herbzilla11 1 year ago
@k3304
I am not advocating that we get rid of these news outlets, I am just saying the free market is not some sort of higher power
When left on its own the free market won't sort out all our problems & lead us to the promised land
Many people worship the free market like a God or Deity
Its possible for something to be harmful to the people and profitable at the same time.
& its also possible for something to be simultaneously beneficial and incapable of generating self sustaining profits.
herbzilla11 1 year ago
@herbzilla11 , the free market is freedom and the absence of freedom we are not free
k3304 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He made his reputation in linguistics and then, extremely impressed with his own achievements in this field, felt free to venture into other areas which he pompously inundates with streams of uninformed opinions.
jscottupton 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Corporations = private tyrannies that put the intere$ts of their share holders above the public trust, often have DEEP right-wing $ political ties, work closely with govt to sell The Big Lies, are NOT liberal/democratic in structure/intent, and to a disturbing degree have all three branches of the US govt bought & paid for.
The US has a phony, brainwashed representative democracy, and typically conducts hegemony/wars of aggression under equally phony premises with fascist ulterior agendas.
TheeUnidentified 1 year ago
wake up amerikka your tax dollars support terrorism!
bolillo239 1 year ago
Chomsky ought to stick with linguistics
sauvesean 1 year ago
@sauvesean So....people need chicken soup letters by their name to be qualified to TALK about anything? I can't talk about economics because I'm not an economist? Though, I'm forced to deal with economics and its effects everyday as a person. I can't talk about a philosophy book I just read, because I'm not a "philosopher"? Chomsky can't say anything valuable to us because he should just "stick to Linguistics"? Silly thinking you have there, if it's thought at all.
Bodhidharma1986 1 year ago
i encounter this problem every time i talk to anyone who listens to most main stream media outlets as their sole source of news, they can not stand listening to an explanation of a thought about anything for more than 30 seconds lol
zayadnay 1 year ago
Facsism comes from the left.
Sure Facsism is to the right of Communism but both political idealogies are left of center.
To the right you have capitalism & libertarianism and individual freedom and private property.
To the left you have dictatorship and tyranny, collectivism and state controlled industry.
GreenChurchReject 1 year ago
@GreenChurchReject You are factually incorrect. You are simply labeling everything you don't like as "left".
devourerofbabies 1 year ago 2
@GreenChurchReject Dictatorships vary. There are right and left dictatorships. Marcos in the Philippines and Pinochet in Chile and Franco in Spain were all Right Wing dictators backed by the US.
In fact, the right breeds dictatorship because right wing thought is authoritarian by nature. The right loves censorship through its religious fanatical arm-the religious right-moves to boycott and attack tv shows and movies as well as the news media.
The right has always been racist as well-slavery.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 you're a moron. the right are the ones who ended slavery and gave blacks civil rights. it's actually the liberals who are the ones who want more authority and control over people. Socialism - is a form of control. Why do you think democrats are so gun ho on having more government? cause it for more freedom? you liberals are so fucking stupid. look at history you dumb fucks, liberals were originally racist, and turned cause they wanted to demonize the republicans.
kingre7 1 year ago
@kingre7 The right wing has never had any interest in civil rights for black people or other people of color for that matter.
They would have been just fine with segeregation under the law continuing until today.
All you need to do is look at the Tea Party and their often subrosa racist rhetoric to see that the right are a collection of klansmen, Nazis and old fashioned segregationists.
The US has never had a socialist government and doesn't have one now.
You a typical stupid right wing fuck
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@kingre7 you're a little confused here my friend, the liberal party at the time was the republicans, while the democrats were the conservative party. So in a sense, you're right that the republicans were the ones who were for human rights, but they were the liberals of the era. I mean think about it logically, today where do you see the majority of conservatives? The south. Where was slavery most prominent? The South.
ronsonmcdjunior 1 year ago
@ronsonmcdjunior
"where do you see the majority of conservatives? The south. Where was slavery most prominent? The South."
Cons most prominent in non gov dependent areas. It has always been small government, liberty first (over egalitarianism) Christian people that have fought against slavery. Your theory doesn't gibe with reality if you spend even five minutes reading some of their old letters, speeches, etc. Leftists want more power, the right doesn't. Pretty simple.
itreeye 1 year ago
Comment removed
mikey3k 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 the republicans also almost nominated the first FULL black man - colin powell to run against bill clinton, yet the democrats chose a HALF black man and always use race to demonize the right even though the right has always been for blacks. Martin Luther King Jr. was a republican and backed by republicans. KKK members were originally full of democrats. And the republicans were also known as the 'party for the black'. So smartass, know you history before you talk... typical liberal
kingre7 1 year ago
@kingre7 The fact is that Colin Powell was not a candidate for President but had considered running.
Therefore, he wasn't almost nominated for anything since he wasn't in the race to begin with-a flat out lie on your part.
The fact is the GOP would never have selected a black candidate because the right wing and religious right factions would never have tolerated it.
It made sense for Demos to pick Obama because of black constituency.
Hardly any blacks in GOP.
The GOP is too racist.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@kingre7 You need to know that the Republican and Democratic parties weren't always like they are today, they changed their ideologies throughout their long history. Originally, the Republican party mainly represented the interests of northern, urban businessmen and manufacturers, and to a certain extent working people, and the Democrats represented the southern land owners. Later on, the main division in American politics became social liberals and progressives vs conservative liberals, ...
PavedStones 1 year ago
both parties having a conservative and a liberal wing. Since the 60's, most liberals moved to the Democratic Pary and conservatives to the GOP, thought there still are conservative Dems and liberal Republicans. For the record, it was mostly the liberals, progressives, leftists (mostly Republicans back then) etc that supported the civil rights movement while the right wing Democrats were opposing it. Just think about it for a minute dude, conservative means you want to keep things the old way,...
PavedStones 1 year ago
... while progressivism means supporting social change in favor of more fairness and equality, so it's kinda obvious who would support or oppose that kind of movements. To the right of conservatives there are the reactionaries, who would like to draw society back to what it was like in an earlier period (many people who call themselves conservatives today should actually properly be called reactionaries btw),
PavedStones 1 year ago
and fascism (Nazism included) which mixes reactionary ideas with left-wing elements (revolutionary rhetoric, admiration for modern industry...) but is still usually considered far right because of its extreme anti-egulitarian stances and other things. I'm telling u that in a friendly way, so that you can now go back to lecturing the dumbass liberals about history but without manking a fool of yourself anymore ;)
PavedStones 1 year ago
@MultiSmartass1 and guess which party starts more race wars and tensions? you got it the liberals! Liberals always use race... and who is really racist? Democrats and liberals. You're so blinded by the media which focus on color and race to demonize the right. Have you actually watched this youtube video? liberals... don't know much about anything.
kingre7 1 year ago
@kingre7 First of all, there is no liberal party in the US. There is Liberal Demcratic Party in Britain but not in the US.
Second, your mentality about so-called liberals and race wars is basically the same anti-civil rights rhetoric that existed in the 60's.
Back then, activists were "stirring up trouble" by pushing for equal accomodations.
Your garbage is no different.
The right in this country has always demonized people of color therefore they are the open and covert racists-like you.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
@kingre7
You know what is throwing off so many of these people responding to you? It is your use of the world liberal to describe leftists. If you gave a speech written by JFK (a liberal) but without his name on it, to 1000 college kids, they'd guess it was written by a Republican. There are no more real Liberals in the D party. It has been taken over by leftists and we should distinguish the difference between the words. There's NO diff between our D party & Europe's socialist parties.
itreeye 1 year ago
@GreenChurchReject you are dumb fascism is corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy or ultra right neocons
istraight1 1 year ago
Thanks for this presentation. What he said is what the whole country knows. The only people who are not aware of it are the liberal elites at Harvard, and Yale, and other worthless schools that fail to teach truth but only teach opinions. Ever since Kennedy brought these people in government, our country has been in serious trouble. Bud
Budga1206 1 year ago
@Budga1206 what the whole country knows? Bud, I'm not trying to be a jerk but can you elaborate on that for me?
Yobomo 1 year ago
I don't get this, can someone explain? I thought Chomsky was a fan of diverse opinions and the left?!?
677boston 1 year ago
A liberal leftist taken to the extreme is a communist/fascist (internationalist/nationalist)
A conservative right-wing taken to the extreme is a libertarian
The LEFT includes socialism, communism, fascisim, etc
The RIGHT includes conservatism, capitalism, libertarianism
Chrisfre 1 year ago
@Chrisfre I thought, taken to the extreme, that the left was economically fascist, communist and socially anarchist, and that the right was economically libertarian, capitalist and socially fascist.
Enleuk 1 year ago
@Chrisfre Maybe we have different views on fascism.
Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy. Fascists believe that a nation is an organic community that requires strong leadership, singular collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong
Yobomo 1 year ago
@Yobomo then Obamacare is fascists.
Your definition is partly correct about facsism being government control of business...also know as cronie capitalism.
Fascism is where business are heavily regulated by government... and business supports bureaucrats in government for survival.
GreenChurchReject 1 year ago
@GreenChurchReject No, fascism is not where businesses are heavily regulated by government. Fascism is a merger between government and corporations.
devourerofbabies 1 year ago
@devourerofbabies That is correct. It is called corporatism.
MultiSmartass1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MultiSmartass1
"It is called corporatism."
I wasn't corporations that built gulags and concentration camps. It was a big State. It isn't corporations that today have the largest concentration camp in human history (North Korea) or threaten genocide against other countries and build nuclear bombs (Iran) This is far more worth being concerned about than some greedy corporation.
itreeye 1 year ago
,you would like to hear me,as a old man who passed 3 war,who provaded himselve food to Gaza,who lived,sort of,in the west bank,who learned History in the university and have a lot of Palestinian friends,and etc. but just to ask,from what you are so afraid
eingedishebrewknight 1 year ago
n8glenn,hello again. it seems that you blocked me,am I right? well,that is a shame,but also a proof that the truth isn't intresting you. you don't want to hear anything that is against your "Turkish side of the family" point of view,and that is sad. if you were seeking the truth
eingedishebrewknight 1 year ago
I have lived in america all my life...chomsky is liar about many things, this one in particular...there is a huge range in the way media presents things here...you can find far left and far right stuff and everything in between
pem82sox 1 year ago
@pem82sox Would you care to provide an example of chomsky lying, with some evidence to back it up?
n8glenn 1 year ago 20
@n8glenn Well, he once said real wages have either remained stagnant or declined, which is not true.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt Actually, that is true. Real wages, adjusted for inflation, have fallen for the vast majority of americans over the past few decades.
n8glenn 1 year ago
@n8glenn If you actually said that real wages adjusted for inflation, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. That's redundant. Real wages incorporate the real value, so they are immediately adjusted for inflation. Youre using economic jargon you yourself don't understand. You also don't realize that it is HOUSEHOLD income that have fallen, and this is because households have become smaller. Real wages, both the income and the compensation together, have gone up.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt Being redundant isn't the same thing as not knowing what a word means. I was being redundant because I wasn't sure that YOU understand what real wages mean, that's why I used a subordinate clause separated by commas. I didn't want to just call you an idiot because you're stating something which just about everyone who's studied the subject knows is false.
n8glenn 1 year ago
@n8glenn Youre attributing your knowledge to a fallacy known as appeal to authority. You assume that enough people who seem to be smart believe it, then it must be true. Maybe the issue is that you only listen to a specific group of scholars that would facilitate a response. Remember that Chomsky isn't an economist. But Thomas Sowell, who asserts real wages are going up, is. As is Walter Williams. And Milton Friedman. And Bryan Caplan, who gives a survey where the majority of economists agree
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt Well, looks like you agree with me in one regard, because you also are quoting authorities to prove your point, which is also an appeal to authority. I'm not telling you that Chomsky's words is proof, I'm telling you that he isn't the only one who makes that claim, in fact I've never heard anyone make the counter claim other than you, so if he's wrong, it's not like he's coming out of left field or lying. Obviously he's stating a view that many people agree with.
n8glenn 1 year ago
@n8glenn No, listen carefully to what I said, as well as what I didn't say. I never said that because Sowell, Williams, Fridman and Caplan, therefore its true. I'm telling you that your experiences are deceiving you into assuming that EVERYONE thinks that wages are falling. But there have been studies and surveys done on this, which shows that empirically speaking, real compensation has risen.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt Yes, I know how to read. You made the exact same argument I made. If there is empirical data stating that real wages have risen for average americans (not the top income bracket -- that HAS risen astronomically), then show me.
n8glenn 1 year ago
@n8glenn Alright, if you insist:
(dot)nabe(dot)com/graphweek/gw061008(dot)html
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt Ok, how about this one? This backs up chomsky's view:
(triple w)(dot)epi(dot)org(slash)publications(slash)entry(slash)bp195
n8glenn 1 year ago
@n8glenn Ignore the first dot
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@n8glenn But since I have provided empirical data, this means I have NOT made the exact same argument you made. In fact, I actually made the precise opposite, both in claim and in method. You use hearsay, I use fact
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt No, you didn't use fact, first you made an appeal to authority, just like I did, then you provided a link to a website, that's not a fact, that's a website, and I subsequently provided a link to a website which directly contradicts yours.
n8glenn 1 year ago
@n8glenn It doesn't contradict at all. Like a typical noneconomist, you fail to realize that income isn't all the workers receive. Real compensation takes into account both the income AND any other benefit the worker receives, calculated by its dollar value. All in all, your data is incomplete
Oh, please. I get enough of these childish antics at work. Don't stoop to their level.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt How do you know their data is incomplete, but the data you like isn't? Maybe the graph on your website is skewed because it reflects the vast wealth earned by the top income bracket, did you ever consider that? There are a million ways to play with data, the point is, Chomsky isn't lying, he's stating a mainstream opinion, and you aren't the only one who can point to a graph which backs up your opinion.
n8glenn 1 year ago
@n8glenn Ok, it seems Im not making this clear enough. Real Compensation includes all Real Wages, but Real Wages does not include all Real Compensation. This is a definition. That's how I know. Your site only mentions wages. Mine mentions compensation. And we know this isn't just the top income bracket because you can see how its strongly correlated with productivity (ie output), which means it is because of rising worker productivity, not greedy rich people, that compensation has gone up
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt What I mean is that if you include the vast increases in compensation at the top, then of course it's going to skew the average compensation upward! if you look at the compensation for the vast majority of americans it has been in decline, which makes sense, because income has flowed upward and that leaves less for people at the bottom. Not to mention the fact that unions have been weakened or destroyed, that has an effect you know.
n8glenn 1 year ago
@n8glenn Just because Chomsky isn't lying (which we don't know for sure) doesn't mean he's not wrong
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt That's right, we can't say that chomsky is lying just because some people out there disagree with him, and of course there's never been a single human being who's never been wrong in their lives, but Chomsky is a highly respected intellectual, and also one of the most hated intellectuals.
n8glenn 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt Btw, the main point of the article is that wages have been stagnant since 2000, I think that benefits were around already back in 2000. If you want to talk about health care costs going through the roof, then that's a separate discussion, because health care costs have gone up, but that doesn't represent a gain for workers, that represents a loss for those who don't have benefits.
n8glenn 1 year ago
@n8glenn Your changing the subject. Besides, health care isn't the only benefit workers get
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt No I'm not changing the subject, health care is a benefit, and it's the main benefit people get, and also by far the most expensive.
n8glenn 1 year ago
@n8glenn But your specifically talking about ONLY health care as a reason why you think compensation hasn't increased. You fail to realize that workers get other non cash benefits other than health care, and even if health care is getting more expensive, it still doesn't change the fact that compensation is going up. It's simply an anecdote you are using to steer the attention away from this fact.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt Come on, you really believe that workers benefit from the fact that their health care is getting more expensive? Surely you're joking.
n8glenn 1 year ago
@n8glenn Come on, you really expect me to believe that statistics are just opinions, but looking around your particular vicinity are an accurate measure of how well workers are doing throughout the country? You must be kidding.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@n8glenn There is also data pointing to the fall of expenditures on food and other products, and the fall of how much disposable income is used on these products.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt Ok, if you really want to believe that americans in general are more prosperous right now than they were in the past, that they have more money, more jobs, a higher standard of living, more wealth, etc. Then that's your call.
n8glenn 1 year ago
@n8glenn This isn't just an opinion. This is fact. Americans are far more compensated now than in the past. That's something you can't deny, and it something you can't disprove. Coping out by making this sound like "belief" is a joke. That's something Chomsky can't deny. I know you love Chomsky so much you can't face knowing a flaw in his character, however Chomsky either made the irresponsible call of confusing wages for all benefits to workers (which is untrue), or being blatantly dishonest.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt A fact? Because you choose to believe one website and ignore another? Because you choose to believe one expert and ignore all the others? No. It's not a fact, it's your opinion, which isn't backed up by anything, certainly not in the real world. Just look around you and you can clearly see that REAL compensation for workers has been going down for a long time. It does not benefit workers if health care costs go through the roof and their health care plans rise accordingly.
n8glenn 1 year ago
@n8glenn Authority really means a lot to you, but let me let you in on a secret: statistics don't lie. They may be based on surveys that are statistically insignificant, but the burden will have to be on you to show that. The fact is both our statistics are correct, its just that real wages are less inclusive than real compensation. I feel like I have said this a million times, but I'm saying it again. There's what you gut tells you, and then there is what is affirmed time and time again.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt You value authority too, you certainly quoted a few. Ok, so you believe that if health care costs go through the roof, and people have to get insurance to afford it, while their wages are falling in all other respects, that they are somehow benefiting from that, I don't. I think they're just getting ripped off by the health care system which is privatized and run for profit.
n8glenn 1 year ago
@n8glenn Basically, here's the scoop. Technically speaking, wages have been falling, but this is an out-of-context assertion. While the true value of wages has fallen, all other benefits have risen by a greater amount than what was lost. Got it yet? The fact that you think you can get away with picking and choosing what you believe in is nothing short of deception.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt Ok, you just stated that Chomsky was telling the truth. He believes, like me, that having to pay insane costs for health care doesn't do workers any good. He believes, like I do, that the hollowing out of our industrial infrastructure, the massive layoffs all over the country, the shipping of our jobs overseas, the vast increase in income inequality where most of the money is going to 1% and the rest of the country is getting poorer, is not a good thing.
n8glenn 1 year ago
@n8glenn It was only partly true. It was done out of context, and so was either uneducated and deviously deceptive. Either way, it was about as true as saying that the sun sets in the west and leaving out entirely how it rises. A man as educated as Chomsky could not have been making a mistake. He was deceiving his audience by not giving them the full picture. Same thing to you in reference to outsourcing and zero sum game, both myths that have been debunked time and time again.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt It's not partly true that 48 million americans are now in poverty, it's not partly true that workers actual take home pay is less than it used to be, while they receive the same health care as before, it's not partly true that our industrial infrastructure has been dismantled and our jobs have been shipped overseas and are not coming back.
n8glenn 1 year ago
@n8glenn So, unless you can provide one study that shows real COMPENSATION (ie wages plus benefits) has been going down, not up, you have no leg to stand on. Youre childish and deceptive attempts at reinterpreting my views won't get you anywhere. So provide me with the above, or get lost.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt I already answered you on that point. I don't consider skyrocketing health care costs to be a "benefit" to workers, I'm only counting things that actually BENEFIT workers.
n8glenn 1 year ago
@n8glenn Again, show me one study showing that real compensation is falling. Unless you can, everything you say is either conjecture or out-of-context drivel.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt I already did. The only answer you could muster was that my data did not take into account skyrocketing health care costs, as if the high costs of health insurance were somehow benefiting workers. They do not. In fact, the skyrocketing health care costs have actually pushed many seniors on fixed incomes into poverty according to the latest census.
n8glenn 1 year ago
@n8glenn No you haven't. You haven't given a single study showing that real compensation (that is wages+benefits) is falling. You only gave me what you thought or what you "consider". Putting this obvious fact in the open, I don't give a shit what you think, only what you can prove.
Nothing is self-evident. On study. One citation. Or get lost
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt I already did, and I'm not going anywhere. I showed you a graph which shows the real wages of workers being stagnant or declining, and you countered by saying that that does not include health insurance, which has become many times more expensive than it needs to be because it's run for profit, not for the benefit of the workers. Why do you think that state governments are running out of money? Because tax revenue is falling because WAGES are falling. Sorry.
n8glenn 1 year ago
@n8glenn Yes, WAGES, NOT COMPENSATION. IF YOU CAN"T GRASP THE DIFFERENCES, TAKE AN ECONOMICS COURSE
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt Now you're just arguing over words, not facts on the ground. I know exactly what you mean and i'm telling you I disagree with your view that workers are getting more than they used to -- health insurance companies might be, but workers are not, and that is what Chomsky MEANS! isn't that obvious?
n8glenn 1 year ago
@n8glenn If you really think this is only about words, you have totally lost me. That's like saying a quart of milk and a gallon of milk is the same thing. Except for, of course, the milk containing more. What Chomsky means? And he granted you the role of his mind reading representative? Either Chomsky meant just wages, then he's only presenting an out-of-context statement. If he meant total compensation, then he is flat out wrong
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@n8glenn Hmm, why are governments running out of money? Maybe because they are raising expenditures. God! I can't believe this, I feel like I'm trying to teach a retarded child how to ride a bicycle. All this is obvious. Completely obvious. You have to be either clueless or extremely gullible to think otherwise.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt Wow, that sounds horrible, you poor thing, but aren't you just assuming that the answer is something else because you have a hard time accepting the truth, that when we took away all the jobs, and weakened the unions, etc, that the vast majority of people in this country are now making less money, as the recent census conclusively proves?
n8glenn 1 year ago
@n8glenn You can claim that whatever you say is the truth, but without a single shred of evidence to support you, its just empty rhetoric. Show me one study that shows the words "Real Compensation" in place of "Real Wages" (Any economist will tell you that indeed these are different things), and shows compensation falling over time. It's very simple. The fact that you are not doing this shows you know you have no leg to stand on anymore.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@n8glenn Again, just to remind you, compensation, not wages.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt
Compensation had not increased in the last 50 years, and wages have not increased in the last 40 years, and the cost of living increases every single year.
The wealth of the nation become more and more concentrated in a smaller and smaller portion of the population and the general population suffers.
herbzilla11 1 year ago
@herbzilla11 There's what you claim to be true, and then there is hard core data. Show me one study that shows real compensation has fallen in the past fifty years
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@n8glenn Here is also data showing real compensation has increased for manufacturing jobs as well. I doubt that would include the top 10%
research(dot)stlouisfed(dot)org/fred2/data/COMPRMS_Max_630_378(dot)png
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@GoingGoingGalt But hey, I'm not an economist and I didn't claim to be. I do, however, understand the spoken english language, and I've heard many, many people, some of them quite erudite and educated, make the same claim that Chomsky makes about wages falling for americans over the past few decades. I have NEVER heard anyone, other than you, claim the opposite, maybe my problem is that I'm listening to respected scholars and not you. Maybe they all have it wrong and only you know the truth.
n8glenn 1 year ago
@pem82sox You might be right, you can find far left people saying the wars should continue for liberal reasons, and far right people saying the wars should continue for conservative reasons, so yeah, that's a big, contentious debate. Why should we keep doing exactly what we're doing now? How should we excuse it?
n8glenn 1 year ago
@n8glenn come on! you are not going to reply to me?
eingedishebrewknight 1 year ago
He never said liberal media was more openly propagandist or that they represented worse ideas, just that their content is narrower. And, in fact, he's right. The further right you go the greater variety of ideas you find and the more likely you are to find air time given to opposing views.
greatsea 2 years ago
Wrong! The further Right you go the more narrow the range of info. Conservative rarely deviates from the conventional 30 second sound bite. The purpose of the Right wing media is to make people stupid.
tomestubbs 2 years ago
what book was he talking about that was a best seller in canada?
Muphlon 2 years ago
so i guess fox is fair and balanced then
SwampAshHSS 2 years ago
KLillz, you write: "...not letting their beliefs be dictated by the beliefs of others,"
Then right after that you write: "but influenced by the various beliefs and opinions of many."
Opinions of many? Aren't they "others"?
Liberalism exists only when double-speak is tolerated in one's mind.
All my opinions and beliefs draw from personal experience and soul searching. Your beliefs are in fact the ones shaped by others.
BallsInYourJawsBitch 2 years ago