« Mukasey and obscenity | Main | Democrats: party of the rich »

MSNBC vs. Fox

THE QUESTION: "How do we get people to tune in?"

FOX'S ANSWER: "Let's have all the news delivered by the hottest babes we can find."

MSNBC'S ANSWER: "Hey, let's get Rosie O’Donnell!"

I know which network I'm placing my money on.

(Hat tip: Jill)


Well, there is a big difference between the two. MSNBC is a serious TV station. Fox News is a soviet-style propaganda station that constantly misleads its viewers. Deliberately and obviously. And I have not seen many "hot babes" in Fox News. Unless you consider Ann Coulter hot. Yuk.

I don't actually watch either. But isn't Fox's lineup Bill O'Reilly at 8 and Hannity and Colmes at 9? Because I don't really find any of them babe-like. :p

Re: Rosie, I am not a fan (never was but really haven't been since years ago when she had her daytime show and one of my sister's friends younger brother (a small 11-year-old) saw her at the mall and asked her for an autograph and she not only refused (which is her right) but was downright nasty about it. To an 11-year-old! But...She does have fans. And I'm sure some of them will continue to tune in. Hey, people still watch Larry King, right?

What Blue Wind said.

"MSNBC is a serious TV station..." (BW)

Yeah, Mathews, Olbermann and Abrams, ALL Liberals (with the exception of the radical Leftist and "Truther" Keith Olbermann), ALL commentary shows (same as O'Reilly and H & C.....except for one FoxNews) being mildly interesting and the other (MSNBC) being Left of the mainstream broadcast media (ABC, CBS & NBC), as well as mind-numbingly boring, the only thing that separates them is ratings.

Apparently FoxNews actually GETS ratings. MSNBC's apparently "above such petty bourgoise aspirations. Yeah, Rosie'll fit right in over there.

Oh yeah, and congratulations BW!

You've officially sunk below the level of "Daily Kossock" (a pretty low level in and of itself), but you've officially sunk to a new low - "Barely Hanging-dom," with BH's classic rejoinder, "What Blue Wind said."

Nice company your keeping now-a-days.

"Hey, people still watch Larry King, right?" (K)

Do they?

I don't know why anyone would!

His interviews seem completely devoid of prep. "I haven't read your book yet, but..."

Hey look! The retard spambot has weighed in with his .2 milligrams of intellect!


"Chris Matthews has repeatedly compared Americans who are concerned about the war in Iraq to Osama bin Laden. We are asking companies to refrain from advertising on Matthews' MSNBC TV show "Hardball" until he publicly apologizes and promises to stop his right-wing bias."

Is this the LIBERAL Chris Matthews you are talking about, stupid?


Chris Mathews is an ardent Liberal.

The fact that most true liberals revile the anti-war radicals doesn't make Mathews any less Liberal, or you any smarter apparently.

Mathews was a presidential speechwriter for four years during the Carter administration. He ten served as a top aide to long-time Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O'Neill for six years.

After tha he worked in the U.S. Senate for five years on the staffs of Senators Frank Moss and Edmund Muskie before himself campaigning for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, and losing his party's nomination to Pennsylvania Congressman Joshua Eilberg in the Democratic primary in 1974.

The fact that he is the most moderate of the three doesn't make him any less Liberal.

Compared to the inept and absurd Keith Olberman, anyone would like more moderate.

So, add "Chris Mathews not a Liberal," to "G W Bush riased H-1B Visas to over a million," RICO statues allow the government to confiscate assets prior to conviction, "Carter wasn't a Keynesian," and "salary is synonymous and includes 'other compensation' " to the long list of things you believe to be right, but are, in fact, woefully wrong.

Hyuk, I be a dumbass! Look at the wiki:
Matthews was raised in a conservative Irish Catholic household. As a young man he supported Barry Goldwater, but was inspired to become a Democrat by Eugene McCarthy's pro-civil rights and anti-Vietnam war platforms. Despite having worked for Democrats, Matthews has said, "I'm more conservative than people think I am. ... I voted for George W. Bush in 2000."

Dur hurrr, da Leeberal voted fer Chimp! Lots a Leeberals musta voted for Chimp, cause he's a conservative, hyuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuk!

Ha! Great discourse...This B.H. drivel is terrific. Fox is real news! Ha! all they do is report on child molesters, naughty priests,etc. but some people like to have big mouth, bullies to admire. poor little B.H. looking for a father figure like Billo. Olberman actually delivers real news (and funny stuff) in a great way.

"Olberman actually delivers real news (and funny stuff) in a great way." (Rich Reynolds)

Rich, might I suggest THE definitive commentary on the Olberman experience?

Humbly, it's at;


Whooops! How'd that get posted anonymously?

"Olberman actually delivers real news (and funny stuff) in a great way." (Rich Reynolds)

Rich, might I suggest THE definitive commentary on the Olberman experience?

Humbly, it's at;


This has nothing to do with anything but have you seen this site


For every vocab question you get right, they (corporate sponsors) will donate 10 grains of rice. One cup is about 1,000 grains.

JMK.. I get it. You don't like Keith Olberman. You are entitled to your opinion. Now get over yourself.

Thanks for the link, K. I got 18 right so far for 180 grains. (They're getting harder, though.)

"JMK.. I get it. You don't like Keith Olberman. You are entitled to your opinion..." (PE)

Actually that's not true PE.

That link pretty shows that I like Keith Olberman as a Sportscaster. He was part of one of the best duos ever (with Dan Patrick), BUT his MSNBC act is embarrasing.

His social/political commentary is not only poorly thought out, it doesn't come across as passionately held beliefs.

That is to say, his "supposed views" fit him like a pair of red bell bottoms.

Well, I like you as a firefighter.

Keith Olberman is the very best. I wish there were more like him.

I like Olberman too, both as a sportscaster and his show on MSNBC.

I like Olberman too, both as a sportscaster and his show on MSNBC.

"Well, I like you as a firefighter." (PE)

Thanks, I appreciate that.

I like you as a poster too...I don't have to agree with someone to like them. In fact, I'm fairly "easy to please," all I look for is someone giving a reason, even if it's a mere "emotional one" for what they believe. If someone can give a reason and stand up for what they believe, I can like/respect that person. It's harder to like or respect those who just say goofey things like, "I think Michael Moore is cool and I believe everyone should think like him," because that implies that that person has no idea, and worse, not a shred of care as to why they believe what they do.

You do, more often than not, give reasons for your beliefs, so do GZ, K and Bob, even though we may ultimately disagree on many things, sadly, many others don't.

"Keith Olberman is the very best. I wish there were more like him." (BW)

In other words, "I (you) like Keith Olberman because I (you) agree with him."

OK, I'd be a little ticked off that he's insisited right up to the end that Cheney or Rove was behind the Plame "outing."

I guess he CAN'T do that any more, since Richard Armitage (you know, the guy who REALLY "outed" Plame) apologized publically for doing so.

I'd like Keith Olberman a lot more if he'd only take off those hideous looking red beel bottoms (a/k/a "Liberal views"), as no middle class white guy ever looks good in those.

"I like Olberman too, both as a sportscaster and his show on MSNBC." (PE)

As is your right.

I finally looked at your "definitive" Olberman commentary..Heh Heh It's YOUR stupid one sided blog. What a putz! The feud is one sided!!?? O'Reilly whines every night then lies about the ratings. Olberman has been catching and beating him and this will continue. (I can't believe you actually bragged about something as lame as Douchebag Dujour)...

Olberman's political commentary is pathetic, mostly because he doesn't understand politics.

It's like those folks who support tax hikes - they're wrong...and for the most part, boring, because they don't understand economics. Tax hikes LOWER tax revenues because patriotic higher income earning Americans, who tend to have more disposable income, tend to defer more of that income, lowering tax revenues in the process.

Likewise, across the board tax rate cuts (down to about 20%) INCREASE revenues because more of those higher income earners take more of that income up front.

Folks like Jon Chait and Keith Olberman, who don't seem to understand that, shouldn't really speak on the matter.

Keith Olberman is a decent sports anchor (or WAS, with ESPN), he should've stuck to sportscasting.

He understood sports....politics and economics, mmmmmm, not so much.

I never miss Olberman and I don't think he's ever spent that much time on why tax breaks should go 15X higher for the wealthy. Maybe you can explain why we subsidised the very top over the last few years. We gave 10 billion to the oil companies last year. Doesn't it make sense that if we gave tax breaks to the 250 million working class citizens they would buy products and services and therfore make the corporations work by the natural order of good or bad products and services. Why do you Kool-aid drinkers adore the very rich so much? Are you really waiting for the trickle down cookie you nipple head?

The income tax rate cuts were across the board, so all those middle class people DID get tax cuts!

Lower tax rates are better for the economy.

Higher tax rates don't impact those with higher incomes anyway, as they tend to have a lot more income they can defer when rates rise.

Of course, that's NOT the case for most of those people earning between $60 and $120K per year. Those folks tend to "live up to their incomes," and aren't able to defer much, if any income...and THEY'RE the ones who actually pay the higher taxes....and THEY are indeed the intended target.

After all, there are a lot more people earning less than $150K/year than more, and they don't have a fraction of the clout their higher income cousins do. That's why the current tax system virtually excludes the "truly wealthy" (those who don't depend on income for wealth), it favors those with higher incomes and targets the vast middle, that 70% of taxpayers who earn over the EITC ceiling and under $150K/year.

The energy companies based in the U.S. (Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Texaco, etc) paid some of the highest tax bills those companies ever did.

They paid the LEAST back when oil was going for under $20/barrel.

There's no reason to "love" the "very rich," but there is also no reason to revile them either.

And only Left-wingers can be Kool-ade drinkers...Conservatives and Libertarians, are....well, just people with a lot more common sense.

BTW JMK...the true libertarians revile republicans, you can't sweep them up into your pack. Nobody reviles the rich, we want to just to pay some taxes. Did you hear Warren Buffet say that he pays 17% and his receptionist pays 30%? Don't waste your time saying that his 17% is so many millions. I doesn't matter... it is still a lousy system. Are you and your red bow-tied boys waiting for the red bell-bottoms ditty to catch on?...I hear crickets chirping.

BTW JMK...the true libertarians revile republicans, you can't sweep them up into your pack. Nobody reviles the rich, we want to just to pay some taxes. Did you hear Warren Buffet say that he pays 17% and his receptionist pays 30%? Don't waste your time saying that his 17% is so many millions. I doesn't matter... it is still a lousy system. Are you and your red bow-tied boys waiting for the red bell-bottoms ditty to catch on?...I hear crickets chirping.

Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, during his confirmation hearings: "As a general rule, I don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves."
New director of Office of Management and Budget Jim Nussle: "Some say that [the tax cut] was a total loss. Some say they totally pay for themselves. It's neither extreme."

Warren Buffet's experience proves my point.

The income tax is geared toward taxing workers. It excludes the "truly wealthy."

If Buffet actually pays 17% his tax rate is rather high when compared to other "truly wealthy" individuals - Teresa Heinz-Kerry and Tom Keane Jr., as examples, paid only a 5% tax rate.

Dividends are untaxed (and should remain so), Capital Gains are also rightly taxed at a relatively low rate (20% for Cap Gains transferred within a year and 15% for those held long-term).

The "truly wealthy" like Buffet, Bloomberg, Trump and the Heinz-Kerry's don't rely on income for wealth.

Income is the least effective wealth generator there is. The "truly wealthy" usually have Trusts and Foundations that shield them from the bulk of income taxes.

So the graduated income targets income earners and it impacts lower income earners, with less disposable income to defer, than it does higher income earners.

In effect, the income tax is designed to keep highly productive people, with valuable skills from accruing significant wealth.

The graduated income tax is the WORST possible system.

A Flat tax is only marginally better.

The ONLY real tax system that would have both the wealthy pay something close to "their share," as well as impacting those in the underground ("off-the-books") economy is the Fair Tax (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer)

Is it possible for a Libertarian to support the graduated income tax?

NO, not at all. The graduated income tax fundamentally violates individual economic liberty and any "Libertarian" who'd claim to support it, is confused, as to what a Libertarian really is.

“True Libertarians revile Republicans...” (Rich Reynolds)

I WAS a charter Libertarian until about 1995, when I realized how completely impractical the Libertarian ideology really is. True Libertarianism bars any and all forms of collective efforts - environmental, workplace safety, aid to the poor, etc. A “true Libertarian” believes in minimal, even marginal government, with absolutely no collective responsibility at all.

Of course, America’s Founders, as devotees of Adam Smith’s economics, supported private property and a free market system (economic liberty or economic Libertarianism), BUT they were also very supportive of Police and Military powers, enshrining BOTH in the Constitution.

While I, especially in my youth, respected the ideological purity of Libertarians, as I grew older, I came to accept the impracticality of such ideological purity. I may be none too fond of many of our social and environmental programs and protections, but I recognize that we aren't about to abandon such expenditures outright any time soon.

Ironically, it was a fellow “paleo-Libertarian” (socially conservative, economic Libertarian) named Bill Bratton (Rudy Giuliani’s first NYPD Commissioner) who was responsible for that sea-change within me. I saw Bratton’s very intrusive, very ham-handed police procedures up-close, working in the South Bronx from 1986 – 2005. I initially believed most of the residents in places where teen-aged males were routinely “stopped and frisked” (thrown up against walls by police and searched) and entire blocks “locked down” (police demanded ID to get in or out of a “locked down” block), etc., BUT they did not. In fact, the vast majority of the residents of those once high crime areas lauded those procedures...and what’s more – they WORKED!

You seem like a pretty “socially conscious” sort of guy Rich...I’m not. I’m an “I’ve got mine, good luck getting yours” kind of guy, and I always have been. THAT’S probably what initially appealed to me about the Libertarian ideology – it makes a supreme virtue out of selfishness.

I LIKED that, in fact, I STILL like that, but I realize that holding to such a pure ideology is impractical.

For ANYONE who is at all Libertarian, NEITHER major Party is acceptable. A “true Libertarian” couldn’t vote for either major Party, and of the two the Democrats are far LESS Libertarian – they revile economic liberty, while still supporting intrusive police powers. Republicans tend to support a more Libertarian economic agenda, along with a strong law & order agenda that’s in keeping with America’s Founders, if not with pure and impractical Libertarian ideology.

My father’s side of the family has always been very political and so I remain a registered Democrat to this day, BUT I’ve never voted for a Democrat for national office, in over 30 years of voting, ironically enough, I rarely vote for Republicans locally. Nationally, I voted for Reagan (twice), Pat Buchanan, Harry Browne, and G W Bush twice primarily because the Democrats first put up Gore, and then after 9/11 opposed the intrusive police powers needed to detect terror cells before they act. If the Dems would’ve put up another Bill Clinton (a social moderate, pro-business, pro-Free Trade Dem), I’d probably have been able to vote for that fellow.

I’ll almost certainly find myself voting for another imperfect candidate (hopefully Romney, if not him, probably Rudy) in the upcoming election.

The issue isn’t really who should pay more in taxes, not at all! The real issue is that we as a people are both over-regulated and over-taxed...and the even BIGGER issue is government spending, because it’s the spending that fuels the taxation.

In the 1990s I could vote for a Harry Browne with a clear conscience, today, the LP has become a pathetic joke. Having once stood primarily in favor of more economic liberty and against the “welfare state,” which is very much in line with America’s Founder’s design, they’ve now come to oppose, even more rabidly, the so-called “warfare state,” which puts them clearly at odds with America’s Founders who were all “law & order” guys, who supported strong police powers and criminal sanctions (you could get the death penalty for 13 offenses back then) as a means of protecting the property of the landed gentry. They supported a strong military for the very same reason. It was President Jefferson himself who commissioned William Eaton and the first U.S. Marines to invade the Barbary States (Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli) over the Barbary pirates assailing U.S. ships in the Mediterranean Sea, and demanding tribute.

So, can a “true Libertarian” support the graduated income tax?

No, not under any circumstances.

Can a “true Libertarian” support the Flat Tax?

Not a “true Libertarian.” As the Flat tax still taxes/punishes productivity/income.

Can “true Libertarian” support Giuliani-like police powers and an aggressive U.S. Military?

Sure, at least it would seem so, since Thomas Jefferson DID, and since all Libertarians love to go back to “America’s Founding design,” both police powers and military powers were enshrined in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson took it upon himself to invade a sovereign nation, without direct provocation, to protect U.S. commercial interests abroad.

KK, neither Nussle's, nor Paulson's full remarks opposed the Bush tax cuts and both acknowledge that tax revenues have (unfortunately) gone up with those tax cuts.

I say "unfortunately," because I don't believe the U.S government needs MORE revenues. It COULD, if so inclined, cut foreign aid, and domestic social spending to cover the necessary Homeland Security expenditures and the expenses of the current military war on terrorism.

The reason that tax hikes result in LESS revenues because "people (rightly) respond to incentives." Well, at least those who CAN, do that.

Tax hikes, like tax cuts are almost always "across the board" rate hikes. Higher income individuals have far more disposable income (income not earmarked for direct living expenses) and they can defer more of their income down the road at much lower tax rates.

Lower income individuals generally can't do that.

THAT'S why "tax the rich" schemes ALWAYS wind up soaking the low to mid-range income earners ($50K/year to $150K/year) the most.

To me, a surgeon who earns $7.5 Million/year, is "just a working guy."

A high paid "working guy" to be sure, but he depends on work/income for virtually all his wealth.

No "truly wealthy" individual depends on income as a major source of their wealth. Not that I support punishing the wealthy either. To what end?!

Saying that, I don't believe in taxing dividends, nor hiking the Cap Gains tax, in fact, I think the Cap Gains rate should be dropped to 10% for short term gains and 5% for gains held longer than 2 years.

I believe that the GOP's "Taxpayer Choice Act" would work very well, taxing all income up to $100,000/year at 10% and all income above $100,000/year at 25%...simple, streamlined, with few deductions, etc.

BUT, the ONLY tax policy that would tax the "truly wealthy" and impact those in the burgeoning "underground (off-the-books) economy" is the Fair Tax, which would tax people based on consumption rather than on income.

Damn!..pheww! I need to go have a cig.(even though I don't smoke) I appreciate your passion, licidity and honesty. I'm just thinking about the neo-con agenda (making sure that we beat down the entire world into our form of Democracy with everyone wearing Levis' and sipping diet cokes on street corners) is what the libertarians dislike and it's what the Republicans don't see. Is this not enlarging and extending government into a death spiral? I say hold your nose and vote for anyone, anything that is not a republican who stands with this administration in the next election. Bart Simpson, Krusty the Klown...anything.

The current military Wot wasn't started to convert these current day 8th Century Islamists into Americanized consumers Rich, not at all.

The jihadists have been waging war on the West in general and America in particular for over two decades.

We TRIED to deal with terrorism as a "criminal justice matter," and that method failed miserably.

After the first WTC attacks in 1993, James Fox ackoweldged that America's criminal justice system is "inadequate to the task of dealing with state sponsored international terrorism."

The idea that, "going after these Islamists with our military is like swatting a fly with a sledge hammer," is an insipid one.

As Michael Scheuer said, "the problem isn't that 'we are doing more harm than good,' or that we're 'creating more terrorists,' the real problem is, simply put, that we just aren't killing enough of the radical Muslims."

The "homeland security" intrusions passed in the wake of 9/11 have all been, if anything, fairly mild.

Sure, police departments have already sought ways in which to expand those new laws and use them for other crimes - back in 2003, a Tenn police dept tried to charge the owners of a meth lab on ancillary charges of "manufacturing WMDs," as some of the byproducts of that process are toxic gases (very clever), and recently NYC convicted a gang member who shot and killed a nine y/o bystander during a drive-by as a "domestic terrorist," allowing him to be sentenced to 45 years instead of the mere 9 year max, he'd have gotten for straight manslaughter. I'm sure the 9 y/o girl's parents don't consider that killing a straight manslaughter, and to be honest, neither do I.

I'd ask anyone, is NYC convicting a gang-killer of a terror-related offense so he could be given a sentence more in line with his crime, a bad thing in anyway?

Even the TN case had some merit, even though it was a stretch...and it was indeed thrown out by the courts.

Could any rational person have a problem with domestic terrorists like members of ALF & ELF, the Aryan Nation, the NOI, etc getting convicted on "terrorism charges?"

In a very real sense they ARE terrorists, even though they aren't "state sponsored terrorists."

I like and support most of the provisions of the Patriot Act....and I especially like the use of the internet by police and outside groups (like "perverted justice") in setting up those online pedophile stings.

They've been challenged under the ridiculous charge of "entrapment," and they've passed muster in a half dozen courts.

I'm praying that if that challenge ever reaches the SC that the High Court simply refuses to hear the case.

"Smoking out child predators and bringing'em to justice," should take precedence over mere legal legerdemain, in my view.

I'll vote FOR the candidate who supports the Supply Side policies that have delivered over a quarter century of unprecedented prosperity and considers the military WoT "the most serious threat facing the West since 1941."

P.S. After the first WTC attacks in 1993, James Fox ackoweldged that America's criminal justice system is "inadequate to the task of dealing with state sponsored international terrorism."

James Fox was the FBI Director of the New York Office at the time of the first WTC attack.

Damn ! you're good at this. How bout' them Detroit Tiger...I say pass the salt and you explain how the planet split apart into different continents and some areas of Earth produced more sodium. Jeez!
Do you think anybody wants our gov. to invade our lives .......I will stop here and say that I am out... "thought, manuvered, even typed" i'll stay out of this site and let you people get it right ..I'm just a little sad about the everyday people I meet that rely on us..people that care...isn't that what we are??? they want us to tell them truths. If we lose our values..our American values..then the WTF

"Do you think anybody wants our gov. to invade our lives? (Rich Reynolds)

Sure I care, I care enough to give full, reasoned answers, as well as detailed explanations as to why I believe what I do, to those who disagree.

Government "invades" our lives all the time!

The FDA "invades our lives," when it inspects the foods we eat.

The FAA "invades our lives" when it regulates air traffic.

The FCC "invades our lives" when it impacts what Americans can and can't listen to. Every time some shock-jock's station is fined because of a boorish outburst, that's the government "invading our lives," by trying to force that station to either drop or rein in that "controversial content."

Our criminal laws "invade our lives" by allowing the authorities to collect and compare the DNA of suspects to that found at crime scenes.

Now, some folks are going to "quibble over a matter of degree," and claim that online pedophile stings, and extra-legal methods of dealing with terror suspects (since state sponsored terrorism is actually an act of "unconventional warfare directed at civilian populations," those who engage in that are actually de facto "soldiers" and war criminals) and because of that, claim "the sky is falling?"

Yes, I disagree with those who feel that way, just as I disagree with those who consider "illegal immigration" a part of the overall immigration debate, and those who believe Iraq was "an illegal war" because we invaded a sovereign nation, without direct provocation and without UN approval.

Less than a decade ago, we invaded another sovereign nation (Serbia) unprovoked and without UN approval and that was "legal," and it went completely unprotested.

Thomas Jefferson invaded the Barbary states without direct provocation to protect U.S. commercial interests, so that would imply that that cause (protecting U.S. commercial interests abroad) has ALWAYS been right and just!

And, in my view, illegal immigration is a "criminal issue," not part of the overall immigration debate.

Less than a decade ago, we invaded another sovereign nation (Serbia) unprovoked and without UN approval.It was not only appoved by the U.N, it was won with our(U.S.) only investing 1.7 Billion...(about how much we spend in Iraq in 5 days.) the world was behind us..we had respect and we won with NO casualties. and We were losing American goods and lives by the piracy going on in the Mediteranian when we sent marines to stop that crap under Jefferson. I don't listen to Asswipes like Limbaugh enough to really see the extent of how much he and other right wing idiots jack your brains around re-writing history. We were right to go and kick ass in the Barbary coast...we were right to stop the "ethnic-cleansing " in Yugoslavia. We are WRONG to dick around in an un-winable mess in ANY muslim shithole. 10 days, ten months or ten years..the very second we finally leave..they will give us the finger, re-join O.P.E.C. and laugh at our multi-year folly. this is the period in America where we really blew it. Neo cons suck.

The Balkan incursion was NOT UN approved, as BOTH Russia and China (both with permanent seats on the UNSC) voted against it.

Moreover, we went in on the wrong side, at least morally, on the wrong side, as it was the Albanian Muslims who FIRST engaged in genocide in that region.

All that Milocevic and the Serbs did was to "respond in kind."

For better or for worse, rightly or wrongly (the overwhelming bulk of the evidence seems to suggest rightly) we now seem to find ourselves in an irrevocable war against strict Sharia-based Islam.

Our commercial interests in the free flow of oil at market prices is far more fundamental to our national survival and national security than a few American ships freely sailing the Mediterranean. After all, during Jefferson's day, England, France and Spain had all come to various "fee" agreements with Barbary states and England and France strongly suggested America do the same.

As things stand today, while American gets most of its oil from Mexico and Venezuela, it still NEEDS the free flow of oil at market prices, to keep that world market price affordable.

The fact that the U.S. may soon get the bulk of its oil from Canada, a nation with larger oil reserves (in oil sands) than Saudi Arabia has, doesn't change that above need one bit.

Despite that fact and the fact that America's own oil sands reserves and shale oil reserves are yet unmeasured, we NEED the free flow of oil at market prices.

Jefferson's military maneuvers in Tripoli PROVED that America has a right and a duty to protect its own foreign commercial interests. Yes, it proved that the government could and would take from the general fund to protect the business interest of a few, because those interest created jobs and other benefits to the many.

During Jefferson's day, we were largely a self-sufficient nation. We didn't actually NEED those ships in the Mediterranean, but they deserved protection merely because they were "U.S. commercial interests."

We do, however NEED the free flow of oil at market prices, as that is now a far more intrinsically vital necessity.

I have to say that the chances of finding a convincing reason to oppose America's current global military WoT, seem about as remote to me, as finding a reason to oppose the Supply Side policies that have delivered us over a quarter century of unprecedented prosperity.

Supply Side got us from 4.7 trillion nat. debt to almost 9 tril with the chimp at the wheel and you say "thank god for these free-spenders". On some levels you seem sane but Damn! do you think everyone waits on your words of how we must keep Re-pubic-heads in office.
News flash! Scott Mclellens' book just hit the book stores.Do you remember saying that it was Richard Armatige alone that spilled the Valorie Plame beans? I just watched two tvs waiting to see if Fox would report it. not yet...it's been two hours...this is what started this thread in the first place...and cnbc, pbs, and msnbc has rported the fact that he said that Chaney, Bush, Rove etc. they all conspired to bring a C.I.A. operative to her knees. All are felons. Fox will not report this crap until 2 am. this started this thread and mark my words ...this is why only Kool-aid drinking nitwits get their "news" from Faux News.

Actually, Supply Side policies saved us from economic ruin. A necessary and unavoidable military war against various rogue state sponsors of terrorism, which has morphed into a larger global war against strict Sharia-based Islam is the cause of the bulk of the current dent load.

Jimmy Carter presided over the implosion of Keynesianism.

Fred Volker (his fed chief)honestly believed that "higher marginal tax rates should result in higher tax revenues."

Today that's recognized as completely counter-intuitive, as it ignores the fact that people respond to incentives.

Higher across the board marginal tax rates WOULD indeed generate higher revenues IF everyone paid taxes at the same rate as tax rates rise.

Of course, that does not happen.

People with higher incomes gernerally have far more "disposable income" (income not earmarked for living expenses) and thus CAN and DO defer a lot of their income, when tax rates rise.

Despite the fact that those earning between $50,000 and $150,000 DO indeed wind up paying those higher rates (they generally have little, if any disposable income to defer), since the top 10% of income earners pay appx 70% of all income taxes, when those folks defer more of their incomes, tax revenues shrink.

Supply Side policies are Libertarian economics in action....not a perfect free market, but a more open, market-based system.

As I said, I don't go to any LP meetings any more, but look high or low and I can pretty much guarantee you that you'll NEVER find a Libertarian who supports higher income tax rates, or Keynesian economic policy over Supply Side policies.

If you do find someone claiming to be a "Libertarian," who says he/she believes those things, tell that person they're in the wrong place, as those views are decidedly anti-Libertarian in nature.

And Richard Armitage was the FIRST to "out" the non-covert CIA office worker Valerie Plame.

Traditionally, the person who FIRST divulges an identity is THE person responsible for that particular "outing."

At the time Armitage disclosed her identity, Plame hadn't left the United States in over 9 years. She was doing valuable desk duty at Langley, and her status being "leaked" didn't put that desk duty in any jeopardy at all. Her husband acknowledged that all their neighbors knew she worked for the CIA, so what's to "out?" What crime did Armitage commit?

As to the cable networks, again, FoxNews gets better ratings than either CNN or MSNBC because it's apparently had, to date (at least according to the ratings), better, or more appealing content - O'Reilly trumps King and Olberman, etc.

Yes, like CNN, MSNBC and CNBC, they've turned the news into "infotainment." Of course, even the major networks have gone that route, just not as effectively as the cable outlets.

But the charge that Foxnews is some kind of "Conservative" network?"

Yeah, ONLY the minds of the brainless.

Alan Combs, Geraldo Rivera, Kirsten Powers, a preponderance of left-wing guests...that's hardly a recipe for a "Conservative" station.

Bill O'Reilly, a "Conservative?"


O'Reilly's a typical white ethnic Catholic from New York. He's anti-death penalty, pro-hate crimes laws, supports a "guest worker" plan for illegal aliens and inanely claims to believe that U.S.-based energy companies, like Chevron, Exxon-Mobil, Texaco, etc., "should sell oil at the price they take it from the ground within the U.S." (appx $24/barrel).

O'Reilly's dead wrong on every one of those issues - we need MORE Capital Punishment, not less (in fact, I support the referendums passed in 14 states that would give the death penalty to repeat child-rapists), hate crimes laws amount to "thought-crime" statutes, a "guest worker plan = amnesty for illegal aliens and IF American-based energy companies sold the oil they took from within the U.S. at anything near the price O'Reilly suggests, they'd soon be bought out by foreign energy conglomerates who sell all their oil at market prices.

If you claimed ALL cable news a wasteland, I could consider that a "considered opinion," but then again, you claim to be a Libertarian who believes in higher tax rates and reviles market-based or Supply Side policies...neither of which is, in fact, a Libertarian viewpoint.

Ever look around a College campus and see that virtually all of the most ardent Left-wingers are found in the "soft majors?" They're either in the "social sciences," or the "humanities?"

THOSE are the kinds of folks who wind up in the media. They tend to be decidedly poor at math and science, which usually means they're deficient in logic, which is usually why they major in those "soft majors" in the first place!

I learned early on that it's better to hang with the math, business and hard science majors. They're generally more grounded and usually more analytical in nature.

It's also good, as much as one possibly can, to avoid all the MSM outlets.

Rupert Murdoch interview in Time a month ago..He says of course it's a right wing news network. Only an idiot argues otherwise. They have a couple token "non-right wing"fools but just ask the man himself.
Once again Fox does not report stuff like McClellens book "outing Cheney, Rove Bush Libby as ALL being complicite in the Plame case. And she was the head of a fake company, I believe, in Dubai that all came apart when she was made "fair game" they did endager approx. 40 agents. But how would you know..you get your info from Fixed news.

I don't get my information from ANY MSM sources....I haven't for a very long time.

And again, Rich Armitage was the FIRST person to divulge Plame's identity.

Ergo, Armitage was responsible for the so-called "outing." That's why Armitage recently publically apologized for his primary role in divulging Plame's identity.

And again, O'Reilly does NOT qualify as a "Conservative," except by NYC/SanFrancisco standards.

Anyone who opposes the death penalty, supports "hate crimes" legislation, a "guest worker program" for illegal aliens, isn't a Conservative by any stretch of the imagination.

Rich/JMK you do a very good job of explaining the "Libetarian view".
And in it's extreme form it is impractical...
However I disagree that Jefferson and the other founding fathers enshrined intrusive police powers.
Libetarians do not support intrusive police powers.
Libitarians support leave me the heck alone! It is MY house, My Business, my car... So if as a restaraunt owner, I want to cater to smokers Federal/State/County/City restrictions are ANATHMA!
If I'm smoking in my car, talking on the cell phone, chewing bubblegum and fixing my makeup while writing on a note pad and driving in a school zone and passing gas,without my seatbelt on ... Leave me alone! If I go over the speed limit, write me a ticket. If I run into a telephone pole. My insurance goes up. If I don't have insurance my license should go away. If I'm caught driving without a license I go to jail. There are plenty of laws on the books that grease the path of civilized people living together.
Most stupid behavior is self correcting. You don't have the right to tell me I can't talk on my cell phone in my car, or smoke or eat fast food....
It is this busybody/nosy neighbor attitude of the main parties that leads me to believe that a little dose of "Pure" Libitarianism wouldn't be a bad thing. My view of Libetarianism is my rights
to do as I see fit stop where my personal space ends. My car, My Business, My House, My property. Governments rights stop there too. If I decide my business will accomodate smokers you have an option
come in or don't, my employees have an option work for me or don't, given smoking environments pose a risk, so does being a cop, a farmer, a coal miner, etc...
JMK - you seem like a liberal-lefty plant. all be it one that isn't totally "talking point" driven but come on... anybody but George... News flash he ain't on the ballot! Tell me you are voting for Obamma... be honest
JMK,Rich I'd like to see you go after it about McCain/Palin vs Obamma/Biden

I turned on MSNBC the other day as I usually do since I'm a fairly regular viewer and I naturally despise FOX. But I've come to realize that MSNBC is even more dumbed down than FOX. I turned on the channel and saw a documentary they did about this guy who took a bath in the sink at the KFC he worked at and posted it on YouTube and was fired. Seriously. The "place for politics," right? And when The Daily Show criticized CNBC, all NBC networks were silence on it, including MSNBC. They're like FOX in that they only have left leaning commentators to get viewers and ratings, not because they're serious in any way. Serious progressives know this, and don't watch cable news either.

Post a comment