Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 45

Thread: Algore's facism ringing through for all too see...

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408

    Algore's facism ringing through for all too see...

    just like pappy...

    [QUOTE][B]Al Gore's Insolent Assault on Reason Robert Tracinski
    Wed May 23, 1:42 AM ET[/B]

    Early coverage of Al Gore's new book, The Assault on Reason, has focused on the fact that the book is largely an assault on the Bush administration. [B]But they have glossed over the most significant and alarming theme that Al Gore has taken up: his alleged defense of "reason" includes a justification for government controls over political speech. [/B]

    Judging from the excerpts of Gore's book published in TIME, his not-so-subtle theme is that reason is being "assaulted" by a free and unfettered debate in the media--and particularly by the fact that Gore has to contend with opposition from the right-leaning media. [I]hey....I thought dissent was patriotic??? I guess if you are only dissenting with the left wing nuts...[/I]

    Developing a dangerous theme that the left has been toying with for years, Gore says that reason is being suffocated by "media Machiavellis"--that's a veiled reference to Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch and Bush political advisor Karl Rove, the twin hobgoblins of the left. According to Gore, these puppet-masters take advantage of "the clever use of electronic mass media" to "manipulate the outcome of elections."

    Now here's the really ominous part. This "manipulation" is rendering our representative government "illegitimate" because it only has the public's "consent"--he repeatedly puts "consent" in scare quotes, just to emphasize the point that this consent is not, in Al Gore's superior judgment, genuine or legitimate. As he puts it, "the 'consent of the governed' [has become] a commodity to be purchased by the highest bidder."

    Presumably, this is Gore's fallback explanation for why he didn't really lose the 2000 presidential election, not "genuinely," not "legitimately." That election makes an appearance in Gore's whining complaint about his loss in a televised debate against George W. Bush: "[T]he controversy over my sighs in the first debate with George W. Bush created an impression on television that for many viewers outweighed whatever positive benefits I might have otherwise gained in the verbal combat of ideas and substance." I remember that debate, and I can tell you that Gore lost because his sighs gave him the impression of being the kind of condescending know-it-all who views a debate as "verbal combat" in which he shoves his preferred notions down the public's throat.

    His new argument doesn't do anything to reverse that impression. His basic theme seems to be: if the left isn't winning in the marketplace of ideas, there can't possibly be anything wrong with their ideas. It must be the marketplace itself that is "broken," and the left needs to use the power of government to fix it--in both senses of the word "fix."

    This is by no means a new theme on the left; Noam Chomsky has been peddling this stuff for years. We only think that we are free to write and to speak and to make our minds up for ourselves, the left tells us. But behind the scenes we're being manipulated by the big corporate media, so the votes we cast and the consent we give to those who govern us is artificially "manufactured." We need to be liberated--by having the left take control of the media and manage it in our best interests.

    The specific form of control Gore favors is indicated when he complains about "the increasing concentration of ownership by an even smaller number of large corporations that now effectively control the majority of television programming in America." This leftist conspiracy theory--the view that "big corporations" control everything--has a specific target: not the left-leaning news shows offered by the big three broadcast networks, but Rupert Murdoch and Fox News Channel, the successful cable television home of the right-leaning media.

    The upshot of this complaint is the threat that the government will use the antitrust laws or FCC regulations to block Murdoch's plans for expansion of his media business, or to break it up--both actions that have been threatened by Democrats in Congress--unless he chooses to use his media influence in a more "responsible" and "public-spirited" manner.

    Lurking in the background are the other prongs of the left's veiled threat against freedom of speech. Campaign finance controls restrict political speech during elections--precisely when the maximum freedom of speech is needed--by targeting the funding of political speech. Meanwhile, attempts to revive the misnamed "Fairness Doctrine" seek to suppress conservative talk radio by forcing broadcasters to give an equal amount of air time to the left, whether or not it can win an audience. This is the measure known as the "Hush Rush Bill," because its first victim would be Rush Limbaugh, who would presumably be forced to share his audience of millions with failed leftist talk-radio hosts like Al Franken.

    This is the American left's version of what strongmen like Vladimir Putin and Pervez Musharraf call "managed democracy." The "marketplace of ideas" can be trusted to work--so long as everyone agrees with them. But if the public obstinately persists in disagreeing with the left, then the marketplace of ideas must have been "broken" by meddling troublemakers like Rush Limbaugh and Rupert Murdoch and Karl Rove--and we know how to "fix" those guys, don't we?

    More broadly, this is what the left has traditionally meant by "reason." For decades, the left has dominated the intelligentsia: the media, the universities, and the other institutions that provide credentials for "experts"--another term Al Gore has been harping on. This leads the left to act as if the latest consensus among its favored experts--whether it be the superiority of socialized medicine or the imminent threat of global warming--must be what every "rational" and well-informed person thinks, because it is the consensus of the elite.

    Thus "reason," as Al Gore uses the term, refers to the ability of the leftist elite to impose its conventional dogmas on the national debate, without the need to persuade or convince others.

    In reality, a genuine respect for reason starts with an absolute respect for the mind and judgment of the individual. A respect for reason requires the subordination of coercion to persuasion through the strict limitation of government power. A respect for reason requires a commitment to liberty above all else.

    Al Gore stands for the exact opposite. His environmentalist crusade is dedicated to the suppression of the material products of the human mind--our advanced industry and technology. And now, in his new book, he is promoting a rationalization for the suppression of free political debate.

    To do this while billing himself as a defender of reason is an act of supreme insolence.

    [/QUOTE]

    [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070523/cm_rcp/al_gores_insolent_assault_on_r_1[/url]

    good to see algore is letting his socialist/communist beliefs out in the open...

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    so let's see, following your logic (yes I know that is an oxymoron being that we're talking about logic coming from you), Al Gore is both a fascist (see thread title) and a communist (see your comments after the article). Do you realize that fascism and communism are pretty opposite ends of the political spectrum?

    I realize the man is good, but even someone of his magnitude (and size, although he's slimming down perhaps in preparation for a re-election run) can't be two complete opposites

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=Tanginius]so let's see, following your logic (yes I know that is an oxymoron being that we're talking about logic coming from you), Al Gore is both a fascist (see thread title) and a communist (see your comments after the article). Do you realize that fascism and communism are pretty opposite ends of the political spectrum?

    I realize the man is good, but even someone of his magnitude (and size, although he's slimming down perhaps in preparation for a re-election run) can't be two complete opposites[/QUOTE]

    good to see such a substantive post in response to the article at hand....

    a little education for your simple mind...facism and communism both put the state before the individual....and that's exactly what this "good man" algore wants to do with his proposed suppression of free speech...

    yet as is the case with most hypocritical lefties like yourself, you'd rather try and justify this but switching the topic....
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 05-24-2007 at 06:17 PM.

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]The specific form of control Gore favors is indicated when he complains about "the increasing concentration of ownership by an even smaller number of large corporations that now effectively control the majority of television programming in America." This leftist conspiracy theory--the view that "big corporations" control everything--has a specific target: not the left-leaning news shows offered by the big three broadcast networks, but Rupert Murdoch and Fox News Channel, the successful cable television home of the right-leaning media.

    The upshot of this complaint is the threat that the government will use the antitrust laws or FCC regulations to block Murdoch's plans for expansion of his media business, or to break it up--both actions that have been threatened by Democrats in Congress--unless he chooses to use his media influence in a more "responsible" and "public-spirited" manner.
    ....[/QUOTE]

    This article pretends that only the left opposes media consolidation.

    Not true at all.

    If you go back to the successful grass-roots effort to overturn the FCC's media deregulation package in 2003, you'll see there were lefty and righty groups working hand in hand to stop it.

    [url]http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_24/b3837046.htm[/url]

    It's the rare issue that the National Organization for Women, Common Cause, the National Rifle Association and the Family Research Council agree on.

    And you call Gore a "fascist" for taking a view that has massive bipartisan support.

  5. #5
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=Tanginius] Do you realize that fascism and communism are pretty opposite ends of the political spectrum?
    [/QUOTE]

    bunk...just another unpatriotic left wing myth/meme

    or maybe in your case ndh indoctrination

    fascism, nazism and communists all share these characteristics:
    belief in government power over the individual, absolute rulers, totalitarian control over economic and social matters for the good of the worker, concentration camps, and genocide as government policy

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]This article pretends that only the left opposes media consolidation.

    Not true at all.

    If you go back to the successful grass-roots effort to overturn the FCC's media deregulation package in 2003, you'll see there were lefty and righty groups working hand in hand to stop it.

    [url]http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_24/b3837046.htm[/url]

    It's the rare issue that the National Organization for Women, Common Cause, the National Rifle Association and the Family Research Council agree on.

    And you call Gore a "fascist" for taking a view that has massive bipartisan support.[/QUOTE]

    thanks for offering yet another assinine comparison....

    massive "bipartisan support"???? where???

    the article you offer to once again feebly back up you non-exsistant point shows almost strictly rat politicians pushing for this...... funny thing the rats don't realize- the market will decide this...if people don't like what they are seeing/hearing/reading it won't last....that's the way Americans want it- not government controlling it...

    ...this is why MSNBC scrapes the bottom of the ratings barrell as does katie the commie couric, the NY Slimes is losing subscriptions and watching their stock drop at a quicker rate than ricky williams lights up joints and why Err America radio filed bankruptcy....

    this is nothing more than algore pandering to the fringe lunatic left which is his sole support....
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 05-24-2007 at 07:53 PM.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    [QUOTE=Tanginius]so let's see, following your logic (yes I know that is an oxymoron being that we're talking about logic coming from you), Al Gore is both a fascist (see thread title) and a communist (see your comments after the article). Do you realize that fascism and communism are pretty opposite ends of the political spectrum?

    I realize the man is good, but even someone of his magnitude (and size, although he's slimming down perhaps in preparation for a re-election run) can't be two complete opposites[/QUOTE]
    Both are forms of totalitarianism, and are actually on the same side of the political spectrum from that standpoint.

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio]Both are forms of totalitarianism, and are actually on the same side of the political spectrum from that standpoint.[/QUOTE]

    gotta love it when a leftist tries to make someone else look foolish and in doing so cements his own ignorance....

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]thanks for offering yet another assinine comparison....

    massive "bipartisan support"???? where???

    the article you offer to once again feebly back up you non-exsistant point shows almost strictly rat politicians pushing for this...... funny thing the rats don't realize- the market will decide this...if people don't like what they are seeing/hearing/reading it won't last....that's the way Americans want it- not government controlling it...

    this is nothing more than algore pandering to the fringe lunatic left which is his sole support....[/QUOTE]

    Yes, everyone is a lunatic but you:

    ____________

    September 18, 2003

    Senate Defies Bush, Overturns FCC Ruling

    Sept. 16

    — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - [B]The Republican-led U.S. Senate on Tuesday defied Bush administration opposition and voted to rescind new regulations allowing large media companies to grow even bigger.[/B]
    The Senate approved, 55-40, a resolution that would roll back the Federal Communications Commission rules allowing television networks to own more local stations and permitting conglomerates to own a newspaper, television stations and radio outlets in a single market.

    The measure faces a tougher battle in the U.S. House of Representatives and a threat of a veto by President Bush if it reaches his desk.

    The Republican-led FCC narrowly adopted the new rules in June, which would allow television networks to own local stations that collectively reach 45 percent of the national audience, up from 35 percent.

    The new rules permit one company to own a newspaper, a television station and several radio stations in a single market, lifting a decades-old ban on cross-ownership. A company would also be permitted to own two local television stations in more local markets.

    The regulations were drawn up under the leadership of FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who argued the relaxed limits were necessary to reflect the proliferation of cable, satellite television and the Internet offerings as well as preserve over-the-air broadcast television.

    Television networks like Viacom Inc.'s CBS and News Corp.'s Fox contended they need to acquire more local stations to better compete against cable and satellite television services.

    Critics, ranging from the National Rifle Association to Consumers Union as well as Democrats and Republicans in Congress, charged that the rules would narrow the choices of viewpoints and cut local news coverage.
    ____________

    And here's where I got the "massive bipartisan support part":

    [url]http://broadcastengineering.com/news/broadcasting_ownership_cap_meets/[/url]

    By an overwhelming 400-21 vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation last week blocking a new FCC rule that raises the national ownership cap of television stations by the nation’s largest television networks.

    The repudiation of the FCC’s June 2 ownership rule has also won significant support in the U.S. Senate. If ultimately successful, new legislation would block a single media company from owning television stations reaching 45 percent of the nation’s households. The ownership cap would remain at the current 35 percent level.

    The battle, however, is far from over. President Bush’s staff has recommended that he veto any bill that rolls back the cap. This sets the stage for a rare confrontation between the Republican-controlled Congress and the White House over an issue that only weeks ago was considered obscure.

    Opponents of the new FCC rules have setup multiple roadblocks using several legislative strategies. Last week’s House rebuke was included as an amendment in a $37.9 billion spending bill that finances the Justice, State and Commerce departments. The measure now moves to a House-Senate conference committee—whose membership has yet to be determined—where the provision could be stripped from the final legislation. Such hope may be futile, however, because one of the chief sponsors of a similar measure reversing the new F.C.C. rules is Sen. Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican who heads the Senate Appropriations Committee.

    To have an FCC regulation publicly reach the desk of the President is extremely rare. If faced with deciding the issue, President Bush could carry out his veto threat—the first of his administration—and alienate several conservative organizations opposed to the new FCC rules. Or, he could sign the spending bill, abandon the major television networks and override the wishes of his advisers.

    News accounts cited key Republicans in off-the-record comments saying that they would be surprised if the president was willing to expend significant political capital over the FCC issue, which now has broad public support and enough votes in Congress to override a veto.

    Five weeks ago, the Senate Commerce Committee adopted a provision similar to the one the House passed. The Senate committee passed the provision by voice vote after a wide majority of Democrats and Republicans on the committee expressed support for it.

    However, the Senate measure would not only block the new station ownership caps, but—unlike the House bill—would disallow cross-ownership of broadcast stations and newspapers in larger markets. Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) is advocating a rarely used legislative device known as a “resolution of disapproval,” which would effectively vacate the entire FCC decision. The resolution is awaiting a vote in the Senate. To go into effect, it would have to be approved by the House and signed by the President.

    Until recently, many broadcasters had assumed any attempt to roll back the FCC’s news rules would be stopped in the House, where Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA) is a staunch supporter of FCC Chairman Michael Powell. However, the House vote clearly demonstrated that the FCC’s supporters had lost control over the legislation.

    “The House has now repudiated the FCC’s attempted giveaway of the public airways to national media giants based in New York and L.A.,” said Rep. David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee and author of the network ownership provision in the bill. “I hope the administration is listening and will fix its flawed policy, so citizens can get accurate, free-flowing information.”

    For more information visit [url]www.fcc.gov[/url].
    Last edited by nuu faaola; 05-25-2007 at 09:55 AM.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    so we have 2 people who failed Civics 101 on this forum? Passing that course with at least a D should be a requirement to post here!


    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum[/url]

    In modern Western countries, the political spectrum is usually described along left-right lines, based on the seating of the liberal and conservative members of the Legislative Assembly of France in 1791, where liberal and conservative were partly defined by attitudes towards the ancien regime. (See section Historical origin of the terms.) [b]This traditional political spectrum has come to be defined along an axis with socialism and communism, ("the Left") on one end, and nationalism and Fascism ("the Right") on the other.[/b]

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    [QUOTE=HDCentStOhio]Both are forms of totalitarianism, and are actually on the same side of the political spectrum from that standpoint.[/QUOTE]


    I KNOW what both are, and I realize there are some similarities that they share, however they are considered polar opposites and it is laughable to call the same person a fascist and a socialist within the same paragraph basically!

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]Yes, everyone is a lunatic but you:

    ____________

    September 18, 2003

    Senate Defies Bush, Overturns FCC Ruling

    Sept. 16

    — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - [B]The Republican-led U.S. Senate on Tuesday defied Bush administration opposition and voted to rescind new regulations allowing large media companies to grow even bigger.[/B]
    The Senate approved, 55-40, a resolution that would roll back the Federal Communications Commission rules allowing television networks to own more local stations and permitting conglomerates to own a newspaper, television stations and radio outlets in a single market.

    The measure faces a tougher battle in the U.S. House of Representatives and a threat of a veto by President Bush if it reaches his desk.

    The Republican-led FCC narrowly adopted the new rules in June, which would allow television networks to own local stations that collectively reach 45 percent of the national audience, up from 35 percent.

    The new rules permit one company to own a newspaper, a television station and several radio stations in a single market, lifting a decades-old ban on cross-ownership. A company would also be permitted to own two local television stations in more local markets.

    The regulations were drawn up under the leadership of FCC Chairman Michael Powell, who argued the relaxed limits were necessary to reflect the proliferation of cable, satellite television and the Internet offerings as well as preserve over-the-air broadcast television.

    Television networks like Viacom Inc.'s CBS and News Corp.'s Fox contended they need to acquire more local stations to better compete against cable and satellite television services.

    Critics, ranging from the National Rifle Association to Consumers Union as well as Democrats and Republicans in Congress, charged that the rules would narrow the choices of viewpoints and cut local news coverage.[/QUOTE]

    which makes algore's assault on free speech even more pathetic....

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]which makes algore's assault on free speech even more pathetic....[/QUOTE]

    How?

    Because you've called him a "fascist" for supporting something that both Republican-controlled houses of congress supported the last time it came up for a vote?

    That's not opinion, as the articles posted above show, it's fact.

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]How?

    Because you've called him a "fascist" for supporting something that both Republican-controlled houses of congress supported the last time it came up for a vote?

    That's not opinion, as the articles posted above show, it's fact.[/QUOTE]

    and the fact is even with those votes algore still wants to repress free speech and take away first ammendment rights.....another form of government controlled speech algore advocates...

    like I stated- he's doing nothing more than patronizing the lunatic element of his party which is his sole support these days...

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,929
    [QUOTE=Tanginius]I KNOW what both are, and I realize there are some similarities that they share, however they are considered polar opposites and it is laughable to call the same person a fascist and a socialist within the same paragraph basically![/QUOTE]

    Agreed.

    Facism and communism are equal in the same way that Christianity and Islam are equal. Realistically speaking, they are not equal at all.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]and the fact is even with those votes algore still wants to repress free speech and take away first ammendment rights.....

    like I stated- he's doing nothing more than patronizing the lunatic element of his party which is his sole support these days...[/QUOTE]

    For the benefit of those just now tuning in:

    CBTNY is now admitting that he called Gore a "fascist" for championing an issue that he now acknowledges has bipartisan support, arguing that he's still right because he can read Gore's mind about his unstated [I]evil [/I] agenda regarding this issue.

    Any other insights from the voices in your head, CBTNY?

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montville, NJ
    Posts
    5,473
    [QUOTE=parafly]Agreed.

    Facism and communism are equal in the same way that Christianity and Islam are equal. Realistically speaking, they are not equal at all.[/QUOTE]



    Thank you! How some people can't understand basic ideas like this is beyond me

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola]For the benefit of those just now tuning in:

    CBTNY is now admitting that he called Gore a "fascist" for championing an issue that he now acknowledges has bipartisan support, arguing that he's still right because he can read Gore's mind about his unstated [I]evil [/I] agenda regarding this issue.

    Any other insights from the voices in your head, CBTNY?[/QUOTE]


    and for those just tuning in:

    Nuu pathetically trying to justify algore's endorsement of goverment control of free speech as stated in his book even though the issue he is whining like a b!tch about was settled four years ago....


    Would you like to share any other nuggets of information Nuu or do you need time to look them up at some lunatic leftist web site like media matters??

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]and for those just tuning in:

    Nuu pathetically trying to justify algore's endorsement of goverment control of free speech as stated in his book even though the issue he is whining like a b!tch about was settled four years ago....


    Would you like to share any other nuggets of information Nuu or do you need time to look them up at some lunatic leftist web site like media matters??[/QUOTE]

    Do you even read the articles you post?

    It doesn't say any of that is mentioned in his book. It says the threat against free speech is "lurking in the background," meaning the author of your article just invented it, based on Gore's opposition to media consolidation in general.

    Just like you, he is imagining his opponent's worst possible motivations and passing his delusions off as fact.

    Any credibility the writer had ended when he pretended that opposition to meda consolidation was a "leftist" issue, which the most recent vote on it proved.

    By the way, the issue was not "settled years ago," as you put it, further demonstarting your lack of knowledge about this issue. A federal appeals court sent it back to the FCC in late 2003 to rewrite. The Republican controlled FCC hasn't acted on it since then. The reason? Bipartisan opposition to relaxed media-ownership rules.

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=parafly]Agreed.

    Facism and communism are equal in the same way that Christianity and Islam are equal. Realistically speaking, they are not equal at all.[/QUOTE]

    of course you would agree....

    but logical people who think things through would see that [B]critics[/B] of religion would contend that, though they have different ideologies, Christianity and Islam are responsible for oppressing, controlling or killing people through their spiritual powers...

    just as critics of communism or fascism would content that, though they may have different ideologies they are similar as through political power, they oppress, control and kill people...

    which is what algore is implying...controling people through government controlled political speech...

    very simple, simple, correlation....

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us