# Republican Power Structures

• News
Monolithic and invincible, the Republicans have designed a truly awesome machine. Its engine is Capitalism, lubricated by Fundamentalist Christianity. Americans have not grasped yet the power of this machine, but the World has seen in Iraq the raging power that dominance in space yields. The machine controlls most of the press. It's poised to destroy envinronmental laws, as well as law that protects the middle and lower classes from exploitation in general. Because the Republican government is so intimately involved with specific powerful industries, in some cases the Public policies are literally written by energy concerns, the "Commanding Heights" of capitalism are centralized in the highest echelons of government, like in the fmr. Soviet Union.
But enough generalities. As we saw last week, the Democrats can rally in a pinch, boycotting quorum votes until the Republicans were ready to talk about re-instating the child tax credits for people making from $10k-27k per year, that's minimum wage to about$13/hr, the typical pay range of an elisted US soldier.
That particular amendment goes back to the House, though, and unless some miracle happens there it will be a hollow victory.

So, I guess my question is, how do you feel about this great power structure- is there anything inherently immoral about always favoring the upper class and in fact forcing hard-working soldiers to pay for the extravagances of millionares, and what will be the likely result?

## Answers and Replies

drag
That's funny !
Two parties with almost the same agenda and you
actually find such, supposedly, huge differences.
The US is very fortunate to have such a stable
mainstream political system.

Live long and prosper.

Actually, in many areas it is the democrats that control the media. Several times on television, I have seen obvious disrespect for president Bush and, praise for president Clinton, whom did little for our country. They don't even call President Bush by his proper title...President Bush. Instead they usually call him Mr. Bush which shows disrespect on its own. I would like to say this:

The Republicans only recently gained the majority in congress. What do you say about the many, many years that democrats were the majority?

russ_watters
Mentor

Originally posted by drag
That's funny !
Two parties with almost the same agenda and you
actually find such, supposedly, huge differences.
The US is very fortunate to have such a stable
mainstream political system.
Heh. Agreed.
Its engine is Capitalism
Quick question, schwarz - if Republicans favor capitalism, are you saying that democrats favor something else? If so, what? And is anything else allowed by the Constition?
So, I guess my question is, how do you feel about this great power structure- is there anything inherently immoral about always favoring the upper class and in fact forcing hard-working soldiers to pay for the extravagances of millionares, and what will be the likely result?
No. "always favoring the upper class" is a popular MYTH. I know we've been over what 'tax cuts for the rich' really means: tax cuts for the people who pay the taxes. And how exactly are hard working soldiers paying for the extravagences of millionaires? I don't recall there being a any Rolls Royce deduction from my paycheck.

And the likely result? Peace and prosperity.

RW:No. "always favoring the upper class" is a popular MYTH. I know we've been over what 'tax cuts for the rich' really means: tax cuts for the people who pay the taxes.
Tax cuts on unearned income. Tax hikes on basic necessities. Big debts for all children. That's not propaganda, its fact. There's a difference.
Quick question, schwarz - if Republicans favor capitalism, are you saying that democrats favor something else? If so, what? And is anything else allowed by the Constition?
Definitely democrats favor capitalism, its the supreme economic philosophy. I bet they also favor law over anarchy. That's why we have a constitution - to preserve law, an essential element of any Republic.
Actually, in many areas it is the democrats that control the media.
What areas? PBS? Democrats only control what they have editorial powers over, in the Network news room, that's very little. They don't want to get "whacked" by the President, as Newsweek was when it criticized Bush Sr.
Two parties with almost the same agenda and you
actually find such, supposedly, huge differences.
The US is very fortunate to have such a stable
mainstream political system.
They obviously dont have the same agenda, else democrat senators would not have boycotted several quorum votes, forcing Republicans to replace the child credit for incomes min->\$13/hr, average wage of dead US soldiers.

Last edited by a moderator:
What areas? PBS? Democrats only control what they have editorial powers over, in the Network news room, that's very little. They don't want to get "whacked" by the President, as Newsweek was when it criticized Bush Sr.

NBC and PBS for sure. You can't deny NBC, they are always on republicans, and "whacked" does not make sense. NBC and PBS have both criticized President Bush and neither of them has gotten "Whacked" CNN is most likely democratic too. ABC and Fox are the two stations that I can watch here. Perhaps it is different across the country.

Zero
In the new Orwellian doblethink, objective reporting of the Bush administration is called 'liberal bias', and telling Republican lies has been renamed 'objective reporting'...pathetic.

They have more influence over the media than you might think, Shadow. Almost all of commercial talk radio is biased conservative. Network jounalism tends to tread a middle ground, which is good, but they seem to 'miss' a lot of potentially embarassing stories about the Bush crew, some of which are on the house.gov website. I'd not be surprised if news organizations were punished (by denial of access) for portraying certain public figures in negative light, as happened to Newsweek in the early 90's.

Zero
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
I'd not be surprised if news organizations were punished (by denial of access) for portraying certain public figures in negative light, as happened to Newsweek in the early 90's.

Well. no s***, conmsidering that the Bush cabal has proimised reprisals for contries that didn't support its illegal invasion of Iraq...do you think for a second they would hesitate to destroy the career of any journalist who dared ask them an uncomfortable question?

russ_watters
Mentor
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
They have more influence over the media than you might think, Shadow. Almost all of commercial talk radio is biased conservative. Network jounalism tends to tread a middle ground, which is good, but they seem to 'miss' a lot of potentially embarassing stories about the Bush crew, some of which are on the house.gov website.
Talk radio is just that - talk radio. Bias really isn't relevant because there is no requirement for objectivity in an opinion based radio show. Only when reporting the NEWS is objectivity important.

Local TV afiliates can vary, but a large majority of the big names in network journalism are highly liberal and open about it. No, its not generally that far left nor is it all that blatant, but the liberal bias in the media is there. And I can also let slide the obvious heavily biased ones such as Peter Arnett and Geraldo Rivera because they tend to shot themselves in the foot more often than not. They are simply entertainment.

The only time the liberal bias bothers me is when it affects the facts or makes a claim when there aren't sufficient facts to support it. For most stories this isn't a problem, but I can think of two recent and one 3 years ago that cemented the liberal bias in my mind:

The networks made a HUGE deal about the tragedy of the plundering of the Iraqi history museum. I'm not even sure where they got their information from. But I bet half the people on this board missed it last week when it was found that in fact the vast majority of the artifacts thought to be lost were never lost. They were hidden in a secret vault and taken home by museum employes to be returned later. This story did not make it big in the press because it contradicted a negative story about the US military. Contrast that with the heavy press the Jessica Lynch story got - it sounded better initially than it really was, so the media siezed on the changes because they portray the military in a negative light.

The other big story is of course the 2000 election. Now I'm not even talking about the recounts, I'm talking election night itself. I'm sure most people here had their TV's on, but I was aghast at what I was seeing and hearing at 8:00 that night. Numbers flashing up on the screen showing Bush in the lead in some states, but Gore declared the winner - and with only 2% of the votes reported. By 8:30 (ET), ALL of the major networks declared Gore the winner with only a small fraction of the votes counted, half the country having polling places still open, and Bush WINNING!! I couldn't believe it. Beyond irresponsible, such reporting can actually impact the outcome of the election. If people think its already over, they won't go to the polls. I can only hope that they were reporting what they WANTED to happen, not what they were trying to MAKE happen.

Zero
Originally posted by russ_watters
\
The other big story is of course the 2000 election. Now I'm not even talking about the recounts, I'm talking election night itself. I'm sure most people here had their TV's on, but I was aghast at what I was seeing and hearing at 8:00 that night. Numbers flashing up on the screen showing Bush in the lead in some states, but Gore declared the winner - and with only 2% of the votes reported. By 8:30 (ET), ALL of the major networks declared Gore the winner with only a small fraction of the votes counted, half the country having polling places still open, and Bush WINNING!! I couldn't believe it. Beyond irresponsible, such reporting can actually impact the outcome of the election. If people think its already over, they won't go to the polls. I can only hope that they were reporting what they WANTED to happen, not what they were trying to MAKE happen.

LOL, that is funny, considering that Fox declared Bush teh winner in Florida, when he was behind...and the recount suyrely proives that it was too close to call, all Repugnican vote-fixing aside. Then again, the man in charge of Fox's election night coverage was Bush's first cousin...

russ_watters
Mentor
Originally posted by Zero
LOL, that is funny, considering that Fox declared Bush teh winner in Florida, when he was behind...and the recount suyrely proives that it was too close to call, all Repugnican vote-fixing aside. Then again, the man in charge of Fox's election night coverage was Bush's first cousin...
Ok, maybe I should have said 4 out of the 5 plus MSNBC called the election for Gore way early (and PBS made no call at all - which was the best call). Quite frankly, I didn't watch FOX news then - I think the 2000 election is why they are so popular now (they were nowhere near as big then) - they were RIGHT!

Zero
Originally posted by russ_watters
Ok, maybe I should have said 4 out of the 5 plus MSNBC called the election for Gore way early (and PBS made no call at all - which was the best call). Quite frankly, I didn't watch FOX news then - I think the 2000 election is why they are so popular now (they were nowhere near as big then) - they were RIGHT!

No, they weren'tr right...and that rift between truth and wherever you live is what separates us.

RW, as usual your information is questionable. I don't find any reference to any significant fraction of recovered artifacts. That would be giant news if it were true. When it comes to distorting information, nobody is bigger than the "conservatives." Except maybe the communists.

______________________________________
"Accept the result of a free election"-- Mikhail Gorbechav, 1989

Originally posted by russ_watters
I can only hope that they were reporting what they WANTED to happen, not what they were trying to MAKE happen.

I agree that the early calls that were done were irresponsible. I would think that their predictions relied heavily on demographic and historical data of the different areas- i.e.-Ohio traditionally votes Democratic and voted for Clinton (I don't know if that's true, it's just an example.)

Now, saying that a person is going to win will more likely have the opposite effect--serving as a wake-up call to the opposition and making supporters complacent.

drag
Greetings !

You guys make it sound as though there are these huge
differences but many of them are actually rather small. As for
major issues like 9/11 bringing the war on terror and the Iraq
war, for example, you appear to ignore the fact that these
issues are first of all examined in great depth by
experts and scientists of all relevant kinds. The eventual
political discision although still affected by politics
is greatly determined by these factors and I personally
think that Republicans or Democrats the US military actions
of the past few years would still likely take place.

Live long and prosper.

They have more influence over the media than you might think, Shadow. Almost all of commercial talk radio is biased conservative. Network jounalism tends to tread a middle ground, which is good, but they seem to 'miss' a lot of potentially embarassing stories about the Bush crew, some of which are on the house.gov website. I'd not be surprised if news organizations were punished (by denial of access) for portraying certain public figures in negative light, as happened to Newsweek in the early 90's.

All commercial radio talk as in the "wireless" is practically pointless. These days, people rely on television and the internet mroe than the radio or a newspaper. Are you so sure the same thing did not happen when President Clinton was in office? It seems the only time that news media was allowed to put out a bad story on President Clinton was when news of his affair came out.

Zero
Originally posted by Shadow
[B It seems the only time that news media was allowed to put out a bad story on President Clinton was when news of his affair came out. [/B]

That's silly...almost every bad story that came out about Clinton was sexual because the radical right-wing had nothing else on him after his first two years. And, of course, every sex scandal was bogus except the last one...but if you keep digging and digging, you are bound to find something.
By comparison, Bush has had an easy ride. He was allowed his little 'Top Gun' moment while dodging questions of his shady military record.(Dodging is a skill that Bush has to spare)

Drag, I disagree that "war on terror" and all the military actions that have taken place would have taken place, anyway, without the huge events of 9/11 and he like.

Although these are the kinds of things that people in the administration and the Pentagon have been drooling about for some time, it needed an event like 9/11 to get public support. And I really don't think that we would have a color-coded terror alert system if it was not for the events of September 11th.

And I don't think that they have been drooling about this stuff because of expert and scientific opinion, but because of ulterior motives and obsession with militarization.

That's silly...almost every bad story that came out about Clinton was sexual because the radical right-wing had nothing else on him after his first two years. And, of course, every sex scandal was bogus except the last one...but if you keep digging and digging, you are bound to find something.

No, there were other sex scandals, Bill Clinton has admitted to at least a second one. What state do you live in Zero?

Zero
Originally posted by Shadow
No, there were other sex scandals, Bill Clinton has admitted to at least a second one. What state do you live in Zero?

Let's look at facts. Whitewater, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, and Kathleen Willey...all false scandals manufactured by the Republican party, and carried by teh media.
Bush and company used flawed and forged documents to support a war. They lied to the American people about the Iraq/9-11 link. There have been no WMD found. Those are facts that get less coverage than the lies about Clinton.

All commercial radio talk as in the "wireless" is practically pointless. These days, people rely on television and the internet mroe than the radio or a newspaper
Lots of people listen to Rush and those other wonders of the world, mostly- people with jobs. Clinton was dragged through the mud numerous times but he balanced the budget and protected the environment, and cut a lot of government waste that is popping up again in super-sized portions.
You guys make it sound as though there are these huge differences but many of them are actually rather small.
They are NOT small if you look at them objectively - the R side wants industries to comply with financial/environmental/labor "guidelines" whenever they feel like it. In effect, the law of the jungle. The L side would rather enforce the laws that protect people from exploitation. It encourages things like social mobility.

russ_watters
Mentor
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
RW, as usual your information is questionable. I don't find any reference to any significant fraction of recovered artifacts. That would be giant news if it were true.

Heh. My point is made!! No, it DIDN'T make big news because it contradicted a negative story.

HERE is a CNN story from 6/12 about a specific piece just returned. The article reiterates earlier comments about the neglect of the US military, but at the bottom, mentions the vase was one of 47 pieces still considered missing. 47? What the...?

Then a few days earlier there is another http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/11/sprj.nilaw.archaeology.ap/index.html [Broken] reiterating how bad of a job the US is doing protecting Iraqi treasures - more damage control for a botched earlier story. Again, the part about 'oops, almost all of the lost artifacts were found' is buried at the bottom.

And the STORY about the found artifacts is actually older than I thought: 5/7. I'm pretty sure I read about it 2 weeks ago in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

So, do you have an alternate explanation for why this story was buried but the Jessica Lynch one was not? Both were cases of bad reporting.
Clinton was dragged through the mud numerous times but he balanced the budget
Yes, fortunately, he FAILED in his effort to vastly increase the size of the government.

Last edited by a moderator:
drag
Greetings DD !
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Drag, I disagree that "war on terror" and all the military actions that have taken place would have taken place, anyway, without the huge events of 9/11 and he like.
I'm sorry, but that's not what I meant at all. What
I was saying is that had the Democrats been in power
(Al Gore for example), the differences in their actions
and discisions, almost as ussual, would be small.

Live long and prosper.

Last edited:
Zero
Originally posted by russ_watters
Yes, fortunately, he FAILED in his effort to vastly increase the size of the government.

LOL...Clinton intentionally reduced government size...he was a decent moderate President overall, probably would have been Republican in a different time.