"What does not change / is the will to change"
--Charles Olson, "The Kingfishers"

Friday, July 3, 2009

What liberal media?

I just want to make sure I understand this: These somewhat inconsequential anti-tax rallies -- thousands around the country? -- get heavy coverage, but heavily attended antiwar rallies and regular vigils get ignored. And we have a liberal media?

3 comments:

reinkefj said...

I wouldn't characterize them as "inconsequential". As anecdotal evidence, I have a friend (Yes, I do as surprising as that sounds!) who has never done anything political before. He's so upset with ALL the politicians that he's going out to his first political rally ever. A tea party. He's upset that his children and grandchildren are being stolen from, put in debt unbelievable, and may never be free. That's "consequential" to me.

And, "liberal media", of which you are so much a part of, refers to its support of the "big government DEMOCRATIC" agenda. You won't hear anything of "anti war" now, because it was all a sham to get the BLUE BIG GOVERNMENT candidate elected. Now that it's Mister Obama's war, it's a good one. (The ONLY true anti-war candidate in the race was Ron Paul. You call him a wing nut, but he gave you a plan for ending the war. "Put all our people on the first thing smoking out of country." And he'd have done just that. Why are we still in NATO?) There are no "principles" involved. We probably haven't had a principled President since George Washington or Andrew Jackson.

See it's all a giant scam. Guess you didn't get the memo. It's just "say whatever is needed" to get OUR GUY in power. Then we'll all feather our nest.

So how's Bush's "Third Term" working out for you? Goldman Sachs is doing just fine. Was that the "change" you were "hoping" for?

Note: There is no difference between the D's and R's. They are two sides of the same coin. (More spending to share!) Co-conspirators in the same crime - robbing the taxpayers of the country and defrauding the rest of the citizens.

Anonymous said...

Dennis Kucinich was and still is certainly anti-war and he was mocked and ridiculed as a weirdo nut. Most of the progressive Democratic caucus is anti the Iraq, Afghanistan wars. Cindy Sheehan has been portrayed as unstable, a freak and a wacko, her personal life was ridiculed and sliced and diced in excruciating detail by the right wing media.
First year House Dems voted against war funding: Donna Edwards of Maryland voted no on the war funding when it really counted. So did Alan Grayson of Florida, Eric Massa of New York, Chellie Pingree of Maine, Jared Polis of Colorado and Jackie Speier of California.
There is the corporate media, Main Stream Media, the right wing media and a much smaller actual liberal media.
We've been in Afghanistan for almost 8 years, enough!

reinkefj said...

For once we agree. But unfortunately, in Bush's third term, we're going to be in AfPak for four, if not eight years.

Ralph B said "War is the health of the state."

And, the duopoly is not going to give up easily on the rationale for its existance.

"A citizen give allegience in exchange for protection"

The fact that it's the taxes the gang wants and there is no protection doesn't enter into the equation.

So why are we in NATO? Germany, and 170 countries around the world with an 11T$ national debt?