MSNBC and The Big Narrative Lie
Most of the time, I have no problem with MSNBC. Why shouldn’t Communist fatheads have something to watch on TV? Conversely, the well-dressed, well-spoken, sophisticated anchors who front the network news and lie by omission and distortion every night while pretending to report objectively — they seem corrupt and wicked to me. They need to be exposed, ridiculed, undermined, defeated and ultimately replaced by people who understand the importance of fair and balanced reporting in a free nation. But MSNBC leftists speaking as leftists — that seems honest enough, no matter what I may think of their philosophy… which is that it’s a recipe for disaster papered over with a facade of false virtue.
But during yesterday’s Republican convention coverage, The Daily Caller reports (h/t Instapundit), the MSNBC goofs cut away during every speech made by a minority. They didn’t want anyone to see that men and women of color were a cherished and honored part of the Republican party. That’s not their narrative so, by gum, they weren’t going to show it. Which raises — not a complaint — but a question: What good is a philosophy that can’t withstand even the sight of the simple facts? If, for instance, you are pro-abortion, why protest when pro-lifers show films of an abortion taking place? If you’re afraid reality will prejudice people against your point of view, shouldn’t you consider changing your point of view? Am I missing something?
Taking another, more honest tack on the issue of minorities speaking at the convention, David Horsey wrote at The Los Angeles Times that this put “a brown face on a white party.” Hey, fair enough. I would have said the GOP was using brown faces to show minorities they’re welcome and to overcome the ceaseless media portrayal of the party as racist. Black conservative speakers demonstrate that there’s another, better, prouder way to live than being dependent on the federal dime. But Horsey has the right to note the facts and speak his left-wing mind about them. Why not?
Bill O’Reilly a libertarian? I don’t think so.
Yeah, he’s more of a populist, and arguing with the libertarian John Stossel.
Bill O’Reilly is an O’Reillyist. He comes across to me as pompus and arrogant. If I wanted to listen to that, I’d pull up John Kerry and Obama speeches.
“Bill O’Reilly is an O’Reillyist.” That is a very good one. O’Reilly is not someone I would consider libertarian. Definitely more or a populist kind of guy.
You are correct: O’Reilly has no guiding principles whatsoever, and is in the game strictly for himself. To call him a libertarian, as Mr. Klavan originally did, certainly makes one wonder what Klavan has been smoking.
“If, for instance, you are pro-abortion, why protest when pro-lifers show films of an abortion taking place? If you’re afraid reality will prejudice people against your point of view, shouldn’t you consider changing your point of view? Am I missing something?”
Remember, you can’t reason somebody out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. So take changing your point of view off the table and what are you left with? Trying to wall yourself off from reality and often raging against it (reality that is).
Bill O’Reilly is not even remotely Libertarian.
O’Reilly is a Center-Left Populist!
As a greater man than I once said, “Be not afraid”. MSNBC will convince no one by this trick. We’ve all seen their viewership numbers – the only ones who watch MSNBC are the ‘true believers’; nothing will get through their walls of dissonance. As for the undecideds, they’ll see this for what it is…..and will draw the appropriate conclusions.
PS – I guess the criticisms stung. MSNBC showed all of Condi’s speech.
PPS – Bill O’Reilly a libertarian? Not in any world that I inhabit.
More likely they just decided it was impossible to pretend that she didn’t exist.
For the Ministry of Propaganda and Lies, the ‘truth’ is what it wants it to be, irrespective of the relationshiop of that truth to empirical reality.
BTW Must agree with Jeff @1: O’Reilly is no libertarian; and indeed, he does not even understand how markets work. I stopped watching him after he began railing at Big Oil’s profits.
Man, anybody that has worked for “Big Oil” for any length of time would certainly agree with this statement. Pitiful, isn’t it? Even had a guy on there one night trying to explain to the dolt the why and the how, and O’Reilly still wasn’t grasping even the elementary. I’ve decided O’Reilly isn’t terribly bright, or math isn’t his thing.
A shame, because O’Reilly does some good things, like exposing these fraudulent and abusive judges, raking Barney Frank as liar and propagandist, etc…
O’Reilly… a libertarian? I am absolutely speechless. I don’t even know how someone could believe that mistakenly. Please, someone, get this man a dictionary.
I watched MSNBC last night and they must have gotten the message. Perhaps, however, it was because Condoleeza Rice was on they felt they couldn’t cover that up. I’m still trying to figure out how they can have that racist Chris Matthews on there. You could say hello to him and he’d think it was racist.
They might’ve played Condi’s speech because they’ve already said she isn’t authentically black or a woman.
MSNBC is part of NBC Universal, which is owned by Comcast (51%) and GE (49%).
Do these companies:
1)Wish to see the triumph of the ideology represented by MSNBC, or
2)Do they believe that extreme leftists represent such a large and profitable market segment that it makes it worthwhile to ruin the reputation of their media assets (and damaging the reputation of the parent companies) among other Americans, or
3)Are they simply unable to exercise effective supervision over this organization?
David, Excellent questions. But I don’t believe the people who run MSNBC are actually supervised by anyone. They are given carte blanche for the failing cable station. One of these days… who knows when… someone who is actually responsible for this crappy left-wing group of miscreants is going to say…”enough is enough” with this jackassery.
Let’s actually report the news, and include multiple points of view on the politics of the day! Heh, then again maybe not.
My guess is “3″, but more likely they don’t wish to appear to try. If they interfere they will be lambasted in the meda (which they are part of) as “corporate interests controlling the press! The Man is trying to shut us down!”. They are afraid a liberal/Progressive protest would get more coverage so they hope just to lay low and be an absentee landlord.
You ask some good questions. I suspect it comes down to the bottom line. It doesn’t cost that much money to operate a 3rd rate cable channel. Despite their poor ratings, is MSNBC profitable? If it is, then that may be all that matters to the parent companies unless they become an actual liability.
“…is MSNBC profitable? If it is, then that may be all that matters to the parent companies unless they become an actual liability”.
Well, maybe, but that wouldn’t be any kind of competent business thinking of which I’d be aware. It’s not just, ‘Are they making a profit?’, it’s, ‘Is the ROC that we get from investing in MSNBC as it is higher than we could get by having MSNBC change its format, or taking that capital elsewhere’? I don’t know the answer to that. The most recent info I found on MSNBC was from ‘TV By The Numbers’ saying that MSNBC made around $150m profit on $370m revenue in 2009, both numbers far behind Fox. MSNBC really can’t change their format – they can’t out-Fox Fox, and it doesn’t seem effective to try and move to the middle where CNN (allegedly) is placed (CNN’s failure to handle the middle effectively is one big reason why their viewership is collapsing). And I’m not sure there’s somewhere else to redeploy their capital, thereby ceding the Left to CNN and abandoning the cable market. MSNBC’s joint ownership may be stuck with what they have, with their only chance to correct the downward profit spiral (if it exists) being a change of personnel if one or more of their regulars crosses a line even the Left won’t tolerate (which would be difficult to envision, unless that line is, uh, you know, like the truth, or something).
It’s the crony capitalism game. Even if MSNBC loses money on paper, what its selective coverage buys for the parent companies is quite valuable. It’s helps them stay on Obama’s ‘good’ side.
” If you’re afraid reality will prejudice people against your point of view, shouldn’t you consider changing your point of view? Am I missing something?”
Yes, Andrew, you are missing something. Leftism is not a “point of view,” it’s a strategy. It’s a strategy for achieving and holding on to power. That’s why lefties say truth is a relative thing. Lefty “truth” is continually adapting to whatever lefties think will convince the poor ignorant people that they, the lefties, know what’s best.
It doesn’t matter that their “facts” happen to be false, once they’ve convinced themselves that they’re believable.
Comcast and GE are heavily dependent on government largesse and sufferance. They’re buying influence with the regime. It should be interesting to see what happens with MSNBC if the Republicans stage a blowout in November.
And Bloomberg this morning posts an unsigned opinion piece that the Republican Party is a white racist party that only showcases minority politicians for show. Their reasoning? Blacks are voting for Obama, so the Republican diversity must be fake. I am not trained in logic, but even I can see through this one. Who do they think they are fooling?
These media firms wonder why they have no credibility. Hahahahaha!!!!!!
The fact that blacks always vote over 90% Jackassocrat is because of the racist element of the D agenda. Blacks are overwhelmingly the most intense racist group in the nation.
Andrew, please don’t ever again refer to Bill O’Reilly as a libertarian. This gives the strong impression that you have an understanding of classical liberalism worse than that of a typical New Yorker columnist.
The reason MSNBC cut away from all minority speakers is obvious: the closest thing to an adult in their control room knew the bobble-head hosts would not be able to refrain from using the terms “Uncle Tom” and “house n*gger” on-air.
I am not sure why anyone cares about the race or gender of speakers at the Republican convention. What is key is the message. And what is that message? Many Republicans call for “less regulation.” What is that code for? Those Republicans are saying that the Federal Government should allow business to pollute, run unsafe workplaces, sell unsafe products, defraud customers, and discriminate against women and people of color. What else could “less regulation” mean? The Republicans want lower taxes. What does that mean? That means when the 1% outsource jobs overseas (and stop paying fair wages to Americans) the 1% can keep more of the money they earn. Republican speakers call for cutting Federal spending (but not defense). What does that mean? That means no more safety net for those workers unemployed when the 1% outsource jobs. You do not need to look at the race or gender of speakers at the Republican convention to understand the hate being spoken from the podium. All you need to do is read the text of the speeches. It does not matter what MSNBC shows on the television, the hate in the words will remain the same.
Many Republicans call for “less regulation.” What is that code for?
Well, I don’t know. Maybe for “less regulation?” Note that “less regulation” does not equal “no regulation.” Promoting “less regulation” addresses the very problem Pres. Obama acknowledged when he said, “shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected.” Shovel-ready jobs could be shovel-ready, or at least a lot closer to it, if several (if not, many) of the layers upon layers of regulation, often applied where the point of the regulation is tangential at best and/or specifically to slow down proposed projects, were removed or at least coordinated so they could be reasonably navigated.
Those Republicans are saying that the Federal Government should allow business to pollute, run unsafe workplaces, sell unsafe products, defraud customers, and discriminate against women and people of color.
Total nonsense.
What else could “less regulation” mean?
See above.
The Republicans want lower taxes. What does that mean? That means when the 1% outsource jobs overseas (and stop paying fair wages to Americans) the 1% can keep more of the money they earn.
At least you admit the 1% earned it. That’s progress. It also means that if the 1% doesn’t in higher-tax environments outsource jobs overseas, they risk going out of business due to lower-priced competition, allowing the 99% to no longer earn anything.
Republican speakers call for cutting Federal spending (but not defense). What does that mean? That means no more safety net for those workers unemployed when the 1% outsource jobs.
Posh. While I agree that defense (inc. military spending, because they’re not the same thing) should be on the cutting board, reducing federal spending does not mean that workers who go unemployed when the 1% outsource jobs would have no safety net. There’s a ton of fat, duplication of resource, outmoded and outdated activity, and cows that are sacred to both parties that need to go away. At the same, restructuring and re-funding safety net programs and programs such as Social Security, Medicare and the final version of Obama/Pelosicare should and must be done if the federal government is to survive financially. BTW: “when the 1% outsource jobs” happens much less frequently than the voices are telling you.
You do not need to look at the race or gender of speakers at the Republican convention to understand the hate being spoken from the podium. All you need to do is read the text of the speeches. It does not matter what MSNBC shows on the television, the hate in the words will remain the same.
Stop imagining you hear dog whistles. Reality is not hate. It’s just a reality you prefer to ignore or wish didn’t exist.
> What else could “less regulation” mean?
Well, it could mean more jobs, more and better products delivered, less outsourcing to escape high taxes. Just off the top of my head.
If Harry’s the only one who can hear all of these racist and sexist dog whistles, then I guess that means that Harry is a racist and sexist canine……
I am not sure why anyone cares about the race or gender of speakers at the Republican convention.
We don’t, except that their presence stands in stark contrast to the Dimocrat narrative that all Republicans are racist … the Dims have made it relevant to the discussion, but only in terms of comparing their narrative to reality.
What is key is the message. And what is that message? Many Republicans call for “less regulation.” What is that code for? Those Republicans are saying that the Federal Government should allow business to pollute, run unsafe workplaces, sell unsafe products, defraud customers, and discriminate against women and people of color. What else could “less regulation” mean?
No, they are saying that scientific and practical reality that recognizes evident threats … not junk science and ideology that puts three-inch-fishes and parts-per-billion probabilities ahead of our ability to pursue happiness … not imposing workplace safety regulations that can be not only economically wasteful, but counterproductive to actual safety … not allowing gnat-straining bureaucrats to deny us access to good products … not lying to women and people of color that they CAN’T get ahead without government “help” that has a history of keeping people mired in dependency … should be the basis for regulation.
The Republicans want lower taxes. What does that mean? That means when the 1% outsource jobs overseas (and stop paying fair wages to Americans) the 1% can keep more of the money they earn.
Who gives you … or Barack Obama … the right to jam your morality down our throats regarding wages? WE can decide that for ourselves, instead of listening to the Progressive lie that the “working class” bears no responsibility for maintaining and enforcing their individual worth in the marketplace. And lower taxes mean that it is MORE likely that businesses stay here, because the cost of doing business here is less.
Republican speakers call for cutting Federal spending (but not defense). What does that mean? That means no more safety net for those workers unemployed when the 1% outsource jobs.
No, it means that more jobs stay here – with a more effective and efficient safety net, managed not by Federal bureaucrats who don’t know you from a statistical average, but by people far closer to your TOTAL situation, with the ability to address and resolve the problems that often underlie poverty.
You do not need to look at the race or gender of speakers at the Republican convention to understand the hate being spoken from the podium. All you need to do is read the text of the speeches. It does not matter what MSNBC shows on the television, the hate in the words will remain the same.
As opposed to the hate that burdens some while giving others false assurance of their future, while keeping them mired in dependency to a few Best and Brightest that has stretched their poverty across generations, simply because they are members of some preferred “class” who “needs” the help of those philosopher-kings in order to thrive?
As opposed to the hate that denigrates as ignorant all those who do not hold to the One True Way of Progressive secular humanism, aka the Cult of Human Omniscience that jams its socio-economic morality down our throats with the coercive force of law and a fundamentalist zeal that makes Baptist preachers look like libertines out for beads at Mardi Gras?
As opposed to the hate that put a myopic moral equivalence, and the denigration of Presidents who held a conservative worldview above the need to properly conduct two efforts (in 1991 and in 2003) to LEGITIMATELY and DECISIVELY interdict a butcher who was trying to turn Iraq into Afghanistan 2.0 with regards to the support of terrorism?
Take a look in the mirror, and see the hate.
Your comment merits this reply–
On regulation — The Consumer Products Safety Comission, OSHA, and the EPA were all created by legislation passed during the conservative Republican Nixon administration. The EEOC was created by the Civil Rights Act which was passed with the support and effort of conservative Republican Everett McKinley Dirksen. Regulations promulgated by those agencies are only those authorized by statute and which survive court challenge by opponents. Suggestion that those agencies should promulgate less regulation can either be code for: (a) violate the law (and pollute or be unsafe) or (b) change the law (and pollute or be unsafe). The reason current Republican calls for less regulation are hateful is that those calls are in fact suggestions to roll back what had been a well established Republican commitment to equality under the law, a clean environment, safe products, and a safe workplace.
On “outsourcing” and fair wages — You should make your argument that outsourced workers lack skills to the automative and mechanical engineers who have seen the major auto companies outsource engine design to places like Brazil, or the folks with computer science degrees who have seen virtually all “coding” be outsourced to India or other Asian countries, or those who have engineering specialties in materials and manufacturing see virtually all computer chip production be outsourced to Asia, or those with law degrees who have seen virtually all legal document work be outsourced to South Asia. Outsourcing is not merely something that happens to textile workers in South Carolina, or line workers in Michigan, Indiana and Ohio, or coal miners in West Virginia, or mill workers in paper mills in the Pacific Northwest. Outsourcing now happens to BA, MA, and PhD holders in design and engineering specialties. It also now affects JDs. The “skills” argument is the “red herring” advanced by those who seek to re-slice the pie so that management makes more and labor makes less. There is no Republican plan to increase working class wages or to help displaced Americans find stable jobs. The Republicans of today have walked away from the “blue collar” Democrats who elected Ronald Reagan. Indeed, you no doubt recall that the Teamsters even endorsed Reagan in 1980 and 1984. Republicans have become so hateful toward “blue collar” labor today that it is not conceivable that unions and Republican would even have a dialogue.
There is no point to belaboring the other issues. The faces of the speakers at the Republican convention do not mask the words they speak or what that means for working Americans.
On regulation — The Consumer Products Safety Comission, OSHA, and the EPA were all created by legislation passed during the conservative Republican Nixon administration. The EEOC was created by the Civil Rights Act which was passed with the support and effort of conservative Republican Everett McKinley Dirksen.
All done after decades of Progressives promoting their conventional wisdom as the real stuff numbed even principled people to the potential for bureaucratic and political abuse of these bodies; as a result, the door was left open for these bodies to be hijacked by Progressive ideologues.
Regulations promulgated by those agencies are only those authorized by statute and which survive court challenge by opponents.
“Legal” does not equal PRUDENT or MORAL … but it does mean IMPOSED by the coercive force of law. Legal might does not make it right.
Suggestion that those agencies should promulgate less regulation can either be code for: (a) violate the law (and pollute or be unsafe) or (b) change the law (and pollute or be unsafe). The reason current Republican calls for less regulation are hateful is that those calls are in fact suggestions to roll back what had been a well established Republican commitment to equality under the law, a clean environment, safe products, and a safe workplace.
Except that “commitment” has – as some predicted – been stretched well beyond its original intent, so that these bodies are inhibiting our ability to pursue happiness instead of protecting it.
Ask those who mine coal … and get their electricity from it. Ask those who pay at the pump for “regionally customized” gasoline blending to meet EPA requirements that are driven by radical-environmentalist ideology when it is not being driven by the junk science of the Climate Change Cult. Ask the people in California’s Central Valley – a breadbasket of America that is drying up for the sake of saving the habitat of the three-inch Delta Smelt.
Ask my father, in his younger days as a millwright, when he has hassled for not wearing OSHA-mandated hearing protection when setting machinery … because it kept him from hearing what the people working with him were saying as they worked together to move multi-ton machinery into place, so no one ended up under part of that machinery when it was set down.
Ask those who might be prevented from getting life/health saving medications because some FDA bureaucrat misinterpreted the data and disapproved the drug … or those harmed because they trusted the FDA to get it right every time, and took a drug that harmed them.
And ask those who initiated subprime home lending not only because they could make money at it, but BECAUSE they would face lawsuits and sanctions by regulatory bodies if they didn’t show enough evidence that they were lending to the “disadvantaged” … and set millions up for financial ruin, both by greed on their part and misplaced ideology on the part of the government’s regulatory bodies.
Your problem, is that you believe a detached, “non-profit” entity like a government regulatory body can ALWAYS and INHERENTLY be better trusted to resolve your problems FOR you, than you can by yourself, or with your “neighbors” outside of government.
That is not government’s mission – its mission, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is to secure your unalienable rights – nothing more, nothing less.
Not save you from yourself … not do your decision-making FOR you.
All you are doing, is echoing the conventional wisdom that got is into the mess we are end. You need to start really questioning your assumptions.
Harry, as an engineer I am well aware of what you are talking about … but I am also aware that business is more concerned with COST-EFFECTIVENESS than low costs. There has been more than one case where companies sent work offshore — then brought it back because low quality, poor service, etc. rendered it less cost-effective.
Business will return and invest in this nation, when it is cost-effective for them to do business here … when they hire workers who actually CARE about making the business successful and are willing to invest their time to be the best they can be, instead of having to hire workers who believe they should get paid for just showing up because they belong to a union, while the government treats productive enterprises as cash cows and social-services surrogates in the service of the all-seeing State.
But now let’s talk about the REAL outsourcing problem, instead of your Progressive talking point:
Many of our government’s dysfunctions … and for that matter, many of our social and economic dysfunctions … have their roots in a belief in the following:
All you need to do is show up for work or go to school; we have experts who have the answers to your housing needs, your health care needs, your financial needs … no need to plan for your future or actively manage your career, since we can do a better job than you can; just trust us to solve those problems FOR you.
This belief … encouraged by our leaders and allegedly Best and Brightest for almost a century, now … turned into a vicious cycle that led us to “outsource” more and more of our personal responsibility, decision-making authority, and resources to the government, and our leaders hiring more and more “experts” and creating more and more functions to “solve” those problems FOR us.
Not only individiuals, but local and state governments bought into this paradigm, and became more and more dependent upon the “experts” – and resources – of the Federal government.
Not only did we effectively make the Federal government the FIRST resort for almost every socio-economic challenge we faced, we rewarded our most important leaders for advocating this, then doing so … by electing, then re-electing them, at every level of government.
The results of this “outsourcing” are now clear … unsustainable levels of Federal govenrment spending, on functions that go well beyond the legitimate mission of this level of government … functions that the Federal government is structurally incapable of performing effectively and efficiently.
And worse yet … high levels of unemployment and poverty, crushing home-loan and student-loan debts, dysfunctional health-care and education systems loaded down with regulatory and bureaucratic dead-weight, legitimate businesses whose viability is threatened by environmental hysteria over three-inch fishes and/or junk science.
ALL BECAUSE MILLIONS WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT THEY DIDN’T HAVE TO EXERCISE THEIR OWN JUDGMENT … AND/OR THAT THEIR OWN JUDGMENT WAS ** ALWAYS ** INFERIOR TO THAT OF “EXPERTS” WHO COULDN’T/DIDN’T KNOW THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL’S PROBLEMS AND THE STATISTICAL AVERAGES …
… led to believe that they didn’t have to think like a businessman and manage their own worth in the marketplace, but instead could work the same job at the same company in the same place for a lifetime while government and union leadership would make sure they got raise after raise …
… led to believe that they could support themselves with degrees in Underwater Basketweaving or Whatever Studies or anything else they found “fulfilling”, to the point they mortaged their future with student loans that many can’t pay back …
… led to believe that they had a RIGHT to own a home, regardless of their financial reality, and had everyone from Fannie and Freddie to Dodd and Frank and Dubya encouraging them to exercise that right.
… led to believe that ANYTHING was justified if it was “for the children”, or to “save the planet” … even if the probable results would have been counterproductive with respect to these justifications.
Forget the “rich” and “corporate greed” and the “1%” … and “union goons” and “environmental whackos” and “poverty pimps” … for they have no real power over us without the ability to collude with government to enforce their desires.
The fundamental problem we have in this nation today, is that we … in our OWN greed and laziness and lack of confidence … have chosen to forsake indivdiual responsibility and neighborly interdependence, in favor of empowering government to go beyond its legitimate mission and attempt to solve virtually all of OUR problems FOR us … when it simply cannot do so effectively and efficiently, in large part because of the same structrual attributes that are essential to maintaining its respect for our rights.
Every other problem we are facing … the deficits and national debt, the lack of jobs, the dysfunctional health-care and educational systems, even our energy woes … are all symptoms of this fundamental problem: the “outsourcing” of our personal responsibility, authority, and resources in this manner.
And the more we grow government beyond its legitimate mission, the more we give power to the greedy, the self-serving, the politically-connected, and the rent-seeking to exploit and abuse us … even when the growth is advocated to interdict such as these.
Harry, it is not the job of Republicans to raise our wages.
It is ours … and we err when we leave that to others, as many in this nation are doing.
Meet the enemy … he is us.
… working Americans.
As if the vast majority of successful Americans didn’t have to work to be there. How about just “Americans”?
You have been sucked into the conventional wisdom … the fiction of a “working class” that is said to lack the capability to “think like businessmen” and exercise personal initiative to advance their lot in life, and therefore must be absolved of both the responsibility of doing so and the authority to make decisions in that regard — OUTSOURCING both to the Progressive Best and Brightest to solve their problems FOR them, as if they are omniscient gods who can see every detail of 315 million lives and get the answers right for each and every one.
THERE is the REAL “outsourcing” problem … not the one involving Asia.
I have lived, worked and thrived without many of the “protections” of the “working class” as an electrical engineer for 29 years … in large part, because I exercised the personal initiative to choose a professional field that balanced what I love to do with how well I want to eat … then worked my rear-end off to this day to do the best job I could for my employer, keep current on the latest technologies in my field, and thereby enhance my value in the marketplace … and if they weren’t doing right by me, I then fired my management and hired another that did so.
Contrast that with the dream of many in my generation … work the same job at the same company in the same place for a lifetime while government and union leadership would make sure they got raise after raise, with little perceived need to exercise personal initiative.
And I worked for companies that, yes, could have gone offshore to attain the services I provide … but you know what? Businesses aren’t so much interested in low costs, as they are cost-effectiveness … and exercising my personal initiative as I described above gave me the ability to keep my job by remaining worth that high salary they pay me.
The “skills” argument is NOT a “red herring”, for the vast majority of businessmen know that cutting costs without regard to the productivity those costs can purchase can lead to less money for them in the long run. You have the power to get what you are worth … but not if you outsource the responsibility to exercise that power to an elite few who don’t know what YOU need from a statistical average, let alone care that they are doing the things YOU need to get ahead.
Those that exercised their personal initiative … did the groundwork, prudent planning, deferred gratification, and management of their future … are the ones better off today, because they were in a position to weather the crisis when it hit.
Those that put their trust in others … union leaders, government officials, deep-pocketed/politically-correct businesses … to secure their future FOR them and left the initiative to them … are the ones that are worse off today. They have been used and abused by those they trusted, who kept their power and perks and meal tickets even after the lies were exposed and the bottom fell out.
Yet Progressives persist in sending this message to the people:
All you need to do is show up for work or go to school; we have experts who have the answers to your housing needs, your health care needs, your financial needs … no need to plan for your future or actively manage your career, since we can do a better job than you can; just trust us to solve those problems FOR you.
I refer to this … a message sent since before my birth almost 54 years ago, because it was embedded into the conventional wisdom by well-meaning people who believed that education and “expertise” would always trump personal initiative when it came to securing our future … as the Biggest Lie of All.
And that name has been validated graphically over the last four years … and on many other occasions, regardless of the party in power, because even principled conservatives bought into its siren song and forgot the value of personal initiative in the life of EVERY American, regardless of pocket depth.
There is no Republican plan to increase working class wages or to help displaced Americans find stable jobs.
That’s not their job. That is OUR job. Their job is to manage this government so that our unalienable rights – including the right to do OUR job – is secured, nothing more, nothing less.
Harry… re: “What is that code for?”
Uh– sorry, I lost my super-duper secret decoder ring.
It’s my experience that Republicans generally say what they mean. Whether or not they’re telling the truth is another matter, but we are a party loaded with people who call a spade a freekin’ shovel to clarify the meaning. I’m not aware of any secret “messages” being passed around. Virtually everything you’ve quoted here can be taken at face value.
The others have gotten into details, I’m just commenting on the gist of your statement.
“Code” indeed! I am getting sick and tired of that.
the Stalinist party is channeling Stalin. Just as he denounced his rivals and eliminated their names and faces from the historical record before executing them, so the Democratic party/MSM is denouncing minorities who don’t dance to their tune as traitors to their race, vilifying them in the most scurrilous language, and doing their best to keep them out of the historical record by denying them air time.
The Republican Party IS the White party. Thank God, at least somebody is. Because the Democrat Party dances to the tune of its sacred Minority groups, to our detriment.
Whites are The Most Foolish People On The Planet. Raised on Christianity and Liberalism, we actually believe the high minded speeches and are terrified of seeing what is increasingly plain: that what drives American politics is race. And that we are on our way to becoming a racial minority in our own country.
And that never turns out well.
Only Whites have a sufficient number of non-collectivists and non-tribalists to honor traditional American political values. After all, our ancestors created them.
Look at the voting trends for all the racial groups. We are on our own, and the sooner we wake up to that, the better.
I know this makes Whites Who Want To Be Nice crazy, but look around, my fellow leukophores. We are not immune to history. And at this point, the choice is out of our hands.
EssEm – I must beg to differ. The Republican Party is the party that was willing to go to the mat to see slavery in America terminated; and it was Eisenhower, a Republican, who was willing to go to the mat to see that schools in the South were integrated. No, the Republican Party, for all its faults, is a party of all the people who believe in freedom and not free lunches. It stands in contrast to the Democrat Party that was the party of segregation in the South and is the party of segregation in the North today by trying to divide blacks and whites; the Republican stands in contrast to the Democrat party which is the party that believes there is a free lunch, but does not believe in freedom.
I’m looking forward to watching football on NBC. Also for compiling a list of advertisers on NBC so that I’ll never buy any of their products.
That was a long time ago, and the Republicans got no credit for it at all…if credit is what is due. In hindsight, given the results, I am not so sure.
But your statement “No, the Republican Party, for all its faults, is a party of all the people who believe in freedom and not free lunches”…is WHY it’s the White Party. Not because it set out to be, but because every other group in America votes its racial and ethnic interest, using big government as its medium. Only Whites –with the few POC showcase expections– want that.
Yet another fake.
One of those apoplectic liberals on Facebook was insisting that Fox didn’t show the minority speakers, either. I was working, not watching, so I don’t know if this is true, but it seems unlikely. I saw outtakes from their speeches later that night. Did anyone watch Fox Tuesday night and see if they aired those speeches? I’d love to be able to go back and call the idiot a bald-faced liar.
I watched them all on Fox.
“What good is a philosophy that can’t withstand even the sight of the simple facts?”
Your confusion stems from calling it a philosophy, rather than a path to power and control.
EssEm:
It’s not “white”, whatever that is. (Russian? French? Be serious). It’s Anglospheric, whatever the ethnicity of those who share our commitment to freedom, justice, Magna Carta, etc. Frederick Douglass. Condoleezza Rice. Mia Love. Benjamin Netanyahu.
The MSM does not deal in philosophy, they deal in propaganda.
May the liberal media rest in peace. I have sworn to never watch a broadcast from MSNBC, NBC, CBS or ABC.
They didn’t want anyone to see that men and women of color were a cherished and honored part of the Republican party.
I must object to this formulation. In point of fact, “men and women of color” are not a “cherished and honored part of the Republican party.” Skin color and gender are entirely incidental.
A woman of color who holds the same opinions of society and government as, say, Joe Biden will be no more “cherished and honored” by the Republican Party than Biden is. Likewise, a woman of color who’s just like Ronald Reagan will be no less cherished and honored than Reagan.
If Ms. NBC ever gave up her career-girl ambitions, there would still be several other cable-TV channel fillers – e.g., RT (Rooski TV) and Democracy NAAW! – to give America’s commie fatheads their boob-toob fix.
MSNBC is the comedy channel for Conservatives – if you can stand it.
MSNBC’s actions were understandable.
After all, it was the Democrat Party that freed the slaves from Republican slaveholders, wasn’t it?
This is sarcasm, right? Please say this is sarcasm.
to those who have this caricature of the Republican Party as all-white, racist, hate filled ###s….i invite you to change media watching habits for a while.
you don’t have to go to the evil fox….
switch on C-SPan convention coverage, watch the uncensored speeches, uncensored camera views of the crowd…available both on cable and data-streaming via internet.
to those who are tired of watching the hate-spewing Liberal Leaning Talking Heads, i invite you also….a relaxing way to watch, eyes wide open to hear what is said to see what is to be seen….
to the liberals…it might be easier on your eyes to stop shutting them so hard to reality…you might grow to like reality when you see both good and bad with out the clownish propagandists who insist on telling you what you just saw and how you should think about it.
form an open mind…the world is beautiful when are open to seeing it.