Buftex Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Really? Consumers can't just turn off the television or not go to the concerts? I had no idea. 60283[/snapback] I think the point is AD, that shouldn't be your only option...it wasn't always this way, and it doesn't need to be now. So much for freedom of choice.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 I think the point is AD, that shouldn't be your only option...it wasn't always this way, and it doesn't need to be now. So much for freedom of choice.... 60295[/snapback] Turning it off IS a choice - it's generally not the only one available in our society, either. We'd be a much better society if more people actually did exactly that. So much for freedom. I guess people like it as long as they can control it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 I think the point is AD, that shouldn't be your only option...it wasn't always this way, and it doesn't need to be now. So much for freedom of choice.... 60295[/snapback] Later tonight I'll answer both you & run in more detail. But do you seriously believe that you have less freedom of choice of information & other products now than you did 25 years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Later tonight I'll answer both you & run in more detail. But do you seriously believe that you have less freedom of choice of information & other products now than you did 25 years ago? 60301[/snapback] Oh there is all kinds of sources, you just can't trust them...most major sources for news are owned by a large corporation that has its' own agenda for what/how things will be reported... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Oh there is all kinds of sources, you just can't trust them....although it seems that most of you do... 60315[/snapback] WTF does that mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 WTF does that mean? 60319[/snapback] It means, for exampl, that there are conglomerates/corporations that own vast media outlets. They have their own agenda for selling merchendise (and ideas) to their viewers/readers. Just pick up a copy of Rolling Stone magazine from the last 10 years. Read the reviews. What was once considered a cutting edge and progressive, is now nothing but a advertisement rag for the 5 (soon to be 4) major music distributers. They have very little objectivity. They would give a Neil Young cd a 5 star rating (deserved or not), and then turn around and give Mandy Moore a 5 star review. They are just pusing product, not offering anything objective. I won't even get into FOX NEWS, because it a "hot pocket" issue that you detest so much. CNN, the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachChuckDickerson Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Plain and simple. John Edwards is a political lightweight who has NO business being a VP candidate. 58564[/snapback] What if the only political postion he held was govenor for a term? Would you feel better then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Oh there is all kinds of sources, you just can't trust them...most major sources for news are owned by a large corporation that has its' own agenda for what/how things will be reported... 60315[/snapback] Let me get this straight. You're pining for the days when the only news that hit your brain was through 1/2 hr. newscasts from three major networks, 1 newspaper, and perhaps 3 radio stations, as opposed to the 1,000s of different outlets worldwide (granted it takes more that passive couch potatoing to type on a keyboard) that you have now? Why, because you trusted Walter Cronkite to filter the news and present it to you in a easy to digest package? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 What if the only political postion he held was govenor for a term? Would you feel better then? 60345[/snapback] If you are referring to president Bush, he served two terms. But, I agree, his experience as governor of Texas did very little to prepare him to be president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Let me get this straight. You're pining for the days when the only news that hit your brain was through 1/2 hr. newscasts from three major networks, 1 newspaper, and perhaps 3 radio stations, as opposed to the 1,000s of different outlets worldwide (granted it takes more that passive couch potatoing to type on a keyboard) that you have now? Why, because you trusted Walter Cronkite to filter the news and present it to you in a easy to digest package? 60351[/snapback] So many, including yourself it seems, give creedence to things that are not necessarily true, because you read it somewhere, heard it somewhere, or found it on the internet...having more sources does not necessarily make things more accurate. There are no journalistic standards anymore (see CBS/Dan Rather), all ethics seemed to be disappearing. Anyone can find a source to back up any claim at this point. If you saw any of the post debate analysis on MSNBC, CNN or FOX, all had on representitives from "fact-check" organizations, to tell us what was truthfull, or misleading by the candidates. They all contradicted eachother, so you can't even trust "fact-checkers" to be non-biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 So many, including yourself it seems, give creedence to things that are not necessarily true, because you read it somewhere, heard it somewhere, or found it on the internet... 60367[/snapback] Any mirrors in your world? GG is one of the most solid posters on this board. Your accusation has little basis in reality where he is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 It means, for exampl, that there are conglomerates/corporations that own vast media outlets. They have their own agenda for selling merchendise (and ideas) to their viewers/readers. Just pick up a copy of Rolling Stone magazine from the last 10 years. Read the reviews. What was once considered a cutting edge and progressive, is now nothing but a advertisement rag for the 5 (soon to be 4) major music distributers. They have very little objectivity. They would give a Neil Young cd a 5 star rating (deserved or not), and then turn around and give Mandy Moore a 5 star review. They are just pusing product, not offering anything objective. I won't even get into FOX NEWS, because it a "hot pocket" issue that you detest so much. CNN, the same. 60344[/snapback] Yeah, I hate the fact that I'm forced to watch/read things from consumer outlets. Oh wait. I'm actually not. Hence the reason I let my Rolling Stone subscription lapse about 10 years ago and don't watch FoxNews or CNN. Look at that. Problem solved. Too bad more people aren't smart enough to figure that out all by themselves. Maybe some more legislation from Mount High will fix the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 So many, including yourself it seems, give creedence to things that are not necessarily true, because you read it somewhere, heard it somewhere, or found it on the internet... 60367[/snapback] Thanks for the softball. The point is that I can use my own filter to judge whether I think a news item is true, based on the countless sources of info that are in front of me. I don't need to rely on someone packaging it for me. Amazing that you think that media now has an agenda, but when there was less competition, everyone presented an unbiased view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Thanks for the softball. The point is that I can use my own filter to judge whether I think a news item is true, based on the countless sources of info that are in front of me. I don't need to rely on someone packaging it for me. Amazing that you think that media now has an agenda, but when there was less competition, everyone presented an unbiased view. 60377[/snapback] Allright GG and AD, you win. Corporate Ameirca is the best thing to happen to us. I am all for it! You have convinced me. Maybe someday, after you are done coutning your millions, you can fill us all in on how you do it all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Allright GG and AD, you win. Corporate Ameirca is the best thing to happen to us. I am all for it! You have convinced me. Maybe someday, after you are done coutning your millions, you can fill us all in on how you do it all... 60386[/snapback] Good post. Since you can't actually point the finger at yourself because you are part of the problem, patronize. Brilliant strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Good post. Since you can't actually point the finger at yourself because you are part of the problem, patronize. Brilliant strategy. 60399[/snapback] Sorry, wasn't intending to be patronizing, but I guess I was....AD honestly, I don't know where you stand on anything from your posts, I agree with you a lot, but then it seems like you just want to argue for the sake of telling people that they are stupid. I intend no disrespect to anyone here, I guess it just seems like we aren't going anywhere on this "topic", and I was just deferring to you guys....I don't understand how you come to some of your conclusions, but I envy you for being so sure of yourselves. Must stay away from PPP board....can't keep up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Once again this comes down to personal accountability. Some people can filter what is allowed into their lives simply by making a choice, and some people choose to complain that they have not been provided with the required filter. It really seems as simple as that. The choices are there for everyone. I dropped the LA Times because their agenda was so clear, particularly when they released the bogus 'groping' story on Arnold a couple of days before the gubernatorial recall election. One phone call. Stop my subscription. My choice. Just that simple. Methinks that's what they're trying to say, Buf... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Once again this comes down to personal accountability. Some people can filter what is allowed into their lives simply by making a choice, and some people choose to complain that they have not been provided with the required filter. It really seems as simple as that. The choices are there for everyone. I dropped the LA Times because their agenda was so clear, particularly when they released the bogus 'groping' story on Arnold a couple of days before the gubernatorial recall election. One phone call. Stop my subscription. My choice. Just that simple. Methinks that's what they're trying to say, Buf... 60460[/snapback] You can get LAT in Mexico? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 Sorry, wasn't intending to be patronizing, but I guess I was....AD honestly, I don't know where you stand on anything from your posts, I agree with you a lot, but then it seems like you just want to argue for the sake of telling people that they are stupid. I intend no disrespect to anyone here, I guess it just seems like we aren't going anywhere on this "topic", and I was just deferring to you guys....I don't understand how you come to some of your conclusions, but I envy you for being so sure of yourselves. Must stay away from PPP board....can't keep up 60432[/snapback] You don't understand how I come to the conclusion that I want only minimal & Constitutional government intervention in my daily life? Why I would want the CHOICE in a FREE society to make up my own mind? If you want clarification, ask a specific question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted October 7, 2004 Share Posted October 7, 2004 You can get LAT in Mexico? 60464[/snapback] Yes, but I can't read it because all the words are in English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Really? Consumers can't just turn off the television or not go to the concerts? I had no idea. On the rest of your post, every "important" job on the planet goes through evolution. It sounds like that's what is happening in this instance. The issues that are alluded to are a two way street. The government hasn't solved the problem, despite adding thousands of pages of regulations over the last 30 years. Most managerial types (myself included), would argue that the burdens of excess regulation has made it impossible to give the actual workers what they need to do their jobs. 60283[/snapback] Over-regulation as bogus paperwork and busywork should of course be minimized. I am talking about deregulation as an impetus for near-monopoly, which is hurting workers. This is not the kind of evolution this country needs. We have always worked to put a stop to this kind of thing. The evolution you're talking about amounts to an excuse for greed and cutting corners, while most of these companies are chalking up record profits. Was there really a problem BEFORE energy companies were overcharging and exacting more out of their workers, when there was more competition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts