MSNBC is having problems!!

I'm now curious....Why did you think I was asking you a question? Hum?

 

If you look at the Right-wing's history, they have pretty much called all of their opponents either Communists or Socialists for at least that last 100 years. It is how they strike fear into their own base of support. It doesn't actually have anything to do with Obama or anyone else in the past actually having anything to do with Socialism or Communism. It is just the boogieman they use to scare their own constituents into voting for them. For low information voters like Coin who can't even identify what Socialism is but he is certain that he is opposed to it, it works just dandy. Unions are socialist to him. If you advocate for the rights of workers, you are a socialist to him.

 

What difference does it make who answers. You lump the 3 of us together anyway.

 

awww, you poor little hypocrite martyr

 

Well, I could lump you 3 together easily but in this case the question was directed to Coin specifically since he made the comment. You can't answer for what he thinks so why try? Unless you two have some sort of telepathic link, I will simply wait for his answer.

 

Well you ARE kind of a trinity. Three different aspects of one god. I think that the only place I've ever actually seen you deviate from lockstep is in Coin's support of marriage equality for same-sex couples. You seem less than enthusiastic about that and I certainly don't think David is on board with it.

 

You need to do a little more reading. Aside from gun control, drones, foreign troop engagements, abortion, et al, you might note several things I do not discuss here. The major difference here is Coin and I can actually discuss something and come to a conclusion or, more typically, agree to disagree - without personalizing things. You, Teddy, and clueless ought to try it sometime.

 

...I'm still laughing...lol

 

So what do you mean when you say that there are things you don't discuss here? Do you only discuss here the things that you three agree on? The things you disagree on you make a point of keeping out of sight?

 

Did I say anything that equates socialism to an agenda in foreign news?

And here, for the millionth time, is the definition of socialism. You can keep your "realization of communism"; I want nothing to do with it.

socialism |ˈsōSHəˌlizəm|nouna political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.• policy or practice based on this theory.• (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.The term “socialism” has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammeled workings of the economic market.The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended toward social democracy.ORIGIN early 19th cent.: from French socialisme, from social (see social) .

 

Journalism or news? Of course you don't think overseas "news" is biased because you worship at the altar of The Guardian, one of the most liberal, left-leaning "news" outlets in existence.

 

My first line said, "You need to do a little more reading." I was not referring to the Bible. I meant here. Now, if that is "out of sight", it is not my fault.

 

Something else you may have missed: They tend to use a lot of phrases and wordings that I've used in the past. It's like homage, but you can't smoke it.

 

News is what jounalists report and of course you completely avoid the questions. You're the one who disparaged foreign news not me. Now tell where you draw the line between "foreign" jounalism and U.S. jounalism given the fact that your personal journalism of choice is so foreign owned. You just sound so foolish when you can't come up with the distinction you are making and then can't define it. I'm giving you a chance to look a little less foolish. Take it.

 

Dumbass. Rupert Murdoch became a naturalized US citizen in 1985.

Seven percent exactly. Big deal. You almost certainly own stock in foreign companies (it's actually a very common practice and if you don't, you should try it sometime). For example, just because you live in Illinois and might own seven percent of a dildo company in Indonesia, Moron Joe, doesn't mean you get to tell the company how to make dildos.

 

So where is the line? If the world is so interconnected, what point is there in disparaging foreign journalism? You make it sound as if it is all dirty unless it is American journalism.

 

No, dumbass. Guy said he gets his news from "overseas", not from domestic sources. What's the point in deliberately limiting one's pool of information? Doing so tends to narrow one's perspective. Personally, I couldn't care less that he only gets news from overseas, but to be truly informed, one should take in as much as possible from ALL sources and then sort it accordingly. I was disparaging his limited scope, not necessarily the news outlets. On the other hand, if he's only getting news from some idiotic liberal organization like the Guardian, well....

That's not to say, of course, that we don't have our own, homegrown, idiotic, liberal rags here in the US. Take Mother Jones for instance (which I read, btw). Like I said, one should not limit his scope.

 

And I will still bet that most of you "overseas" news about America comes from either the internet or the American lame street media. So in the end he is still getting MSNBC news etc.

 

Which still brings me back to, where do you guys get your accurate news that you make informed decisions about? I've yet to hear about this reliable source.

 

Personally, I love the Economist. They don't have the same bias that American news organizations have, they have their own, which I find both refreshing and, more importantly, more accurate than the typical American's understanding of the World.