O'Reilly: "Obama is not a socialist"

[synthesis]

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/190851-O_Reilly_We_Want_Obama_to_Succeed.php



Do you want Obama to fail?


No. We want him to succeed. We want to persuade him that perhaps some of his policies are not going to help him succeed.


What about all this talk of socialism? Isn’t that a little premature, since this bailout was started by the Bush administration?

I’ve never bought into the fact that Barack Obama is a socialist. I think he’s a classic liberal that believes that big government can solve the problems of society, and he wants to redistribute income. I don’t think he’s a socialist. I don’t think he wants to seize people’s property. But I do think he’s a classic committed liberal.


Do you think the socialist argument being advanced by the right-wing pundits is effective?

It raises questions about how far the government is going to be able to go in its pursuit of social engineering. So I think it’s worthy in that regard. You’re reminding people that there is a difference between the United States and Sweden. To call these people Communists and socialists, that’s as nutty as the far left calling people fascists and all of that. It’s the same kind of craziness.
Even though O'Reilly is obviously the go-to foil for pretty much everyone left of Lieberman, he does have the capacity to be remarkably honest about the nature of bourgeois democracy, even if the substance is implicit. Watch this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JRGNXEgWb4) and skip to about 6:18... I found it amusing watching Maher fumble around for a response.

[Pirate Utopian]

Thank God we now have Bill O'Rielly to back us up with this Obama-thing.

[Vahanian]

Wow. its nice to see that he found some kind of sense.

[ZeroNowhere]

I’ve never bought into the fact that Barack Obama is a socialist. I think he’s a classic liberal that believes that big government can solve the problems of society, and he wants to redistribute income. I don’t think he’s a socialist. I don’t think he wants to seize people’s property. But I do think he’s a classic committed liberal.
Presumably he meant 'social liberal', rather than 'classic liberal' (classical liberals want... Deregulation).

[GPDP]

I despise O RLY (though as far as the far-right is concerned, he's pretty much the least nutty, if that says anything), but I'm actually glad he's said this. Maybe then some of the morons that keep parroting the lie that Obama is a socialist can shut up.

Of course, those to the right of O RLY will keep it up.

And yeah, I found the comment about Obama being a "classic" liberal amusing. Classical liberals were no lovers of "big government". Though I wouldn't lump them in with modern-day libertarians.

[synthesis]

I think he meant "classic" as in "old-school," like LBJ and the rest of the Democratic Party before Clinton, with all of his triangulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clintonian_triangulation) and so on. Again, as long as you aren't one of those whiny bastards always complaining about how we Americans misuse the word "liberal," his statement isn't too far off the mark.

[RGacky3]

Presumably he meant 'social liberal', rather than 'classic liberal' (classical liberals want... Deregulation).

I was thinking the same thing, the guys an idiot.

Obviously the intensity of his douchiness gets toned down when he's not on his show.


Watch this clip (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JRGNXEgWb4) and skip to about 6:18... I found it amusing watching Maher fumble around for a response.

I love that, this is the one time I compleatly agree with Bill this time, haha, he's ultimately tearing apart amarican democracy without even knowing it. Why? Just to beat the other guy.

[JimmyJazz]

I think he meant "classic" as in "old-school," like LBJ and the rest of the Democratic Party before Clinton

Er, the disagreement isn't over which meaning of "classic" he's using, but over which meaning of "liberal". The word liberal still means "free markets, individual rights, limited government" in much of the world besides the U.S.

[spritely]

The American political mainstream is fucked beyond belief. "Leftists" like the Democrats are to the right of rightists in Europe (who support universal healthcare and education). Our "classical liberals" support big government. Cuba and North Korea are "Communist Countries."

99% of Americans have no understanding of political science.

I'm not talking down or blaming my neighbors. I'm just stating facts. How did it get like this and how can it be reversed?

60 years ago workers knew where they stood and who their enemies were even if they weren't communists. Now "communists" don't even know. The CPUSA has pink belly and the most "revolutionary" sects orient themselves around reformism (like the PSL telling people they're fighting to get funding for education instead of police sorry that's not how capitalism works if you want that you have to get of capitalism how about telling people that you belly crawling mealworms).

When you can change the meanings of words its easier to win arguments.

[redSHARP]

bill is a strange character. i dont trust him and i think his "interview" style is repulsive, but ehh its Fox.

[synthesis]

Er, the disagreement isn't over which meaning of "classic" he's using, but over which meaning of "liberal". The word liberal still means "free markets, individual rights, limited government" in much of the world besides the U.S.

I understand that. What I'm saying is that he specifically said "classic," not "classical" and politically aware Americans will understand the connotations with regards to the Great Society, triangulation, and so on.

I personally think all these quibbles over the proper use of the word "liberal" are fucking stupid. Leave us alone.

[Kassad]

60 years ago workers knew where they stood and who their enemies were even if they weren't communists. Now "communists" don't even know. The CPUSA has pink belly and the most "revolutionary" sects orient themselves around reformism (like the PSL telling people they're fighting to get funding for education instead of police sorry that's not how capitalism works if you want that you have to get of capitalism how about telling people that you belly crawling mealworms).

When you can change the meanings of words its easier to win arguments.

Sometimes I wonder if you people wake up and intentionally try to be idiotic. First of all, I can hardly understand what irrelevant and malinformed babble you're spewing at me, but I'll try to not lose any more sanity than is necessary. I mean, do you read what you're writing? You're criticizing the Party for Socialism and Liberation because they demand proper funding for education and an end to racist policies in the criminal justice system? I'll ignore for a few moments that your statement is totally ignorant towards the party's platform, but most of all, it's obvious you know absolutely nothing about the party. If you read the articles on the website (www.PSLWeb.org (http://www.pslweb.org/)) regarding theory, fundamentals of Marxism and the pamphlet Socialism and Liberation: Who We Are and What We Stand For, you would realize very quickly that the party realizes that no solid, long-lasting social changes will come under capitalism, thus why we advocate the total destruction of the system.

Fighting for reforms is how the working class and the revolutionary vanguard educate themselves and others. It properly constructs community organization so that revolutionaries can prepare for revolutionary struggle. Claiming that we shouldn't fight for reforms is a total affront to the class struggle and is abhorrent to everything revolutionary socialism stands for. No one in the party is saying that 'we want reforms, not revolution!' We are attempting to further the class struggle so that it will properly maintain the working class and its material needs. Regardless, if that's all you see coming from the Party for Socialism and Liberation, I'm at a loss for words. It's like talking to a dead animal, to be honest. We aren't calling for reforms. We're calling for revolution. Thanks for playing.

[JimmyJazz]

I understand that. What I'm saying is that he specifically said "classic," not "classical"

Oh, good point.


I personally think all these quibbles over the proper use of the word "liberal" are fucking stupid. Leave us alone.

Since you have a ton of posts, I should probably have not contributed to lecturing you about it; I know you know already. Sorry.

I will probably strangle the next person to pedantically tell me that the U.S. is "a republic, not a democracy."

[synthesis]

Since you have a ton of posts, I should probably have not contributed to lecturing you about it; I know you know already. Sorry.

It's all good, I wasn't referring to you. There is a current of people, mostly European, who get snobby in the face of "stupid Americans who can't use words right." We don't give them shit for using "flat" as a noun, let us be.

[Invincible Summer]

I.. actually am glad Bill "Papa Bear" O'Reilly said this!! Is this... real life?! I'm so confused!! :(

[GracchusBabeuf]

O'Reilly is not actually as crazy as many other Republicans. He is much more smarter and articulate. Maybe thats why there needs to be a Colbert to make fun of him and maybe thats why he is more dangerous. The other Republicans are prone to self-mockeries of themselves.:D

[Bud Struggle]

Yea, I think O'Reilly's a fairly decent guy. He has his agenda but he articulates it pretty well and he's pretty fair in what he says.

He's moderate (in an American way) in politics and conservative, that is traditional America values, in the way of social issues.

[swirling_vortex]

What?! Bill O'Reilly says Obama isn't a socialist? Who are you and what have you done to my life?

[RGacky3]

He's moderate (in an American way) in politics and conservative, that is traditional America values, in the way of social issues.

Moderate?? Are you kidding me? What planet are you from.


Yea, I think O'Reilly's a fairly decent guy. He has his agenda but he articulates it pretty well and he's pretty fair in what he says.


Pretty fair, really? You've gotta be kidding me, his show is a right wing joke, its only made less of a joke, by other fox shows that are even more of a joke.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Moderate?? Are you kidding me? What planet are you from.

Not LA lol

That show sucks, but it's not as bad as the other Fox News shit. I only get right-wing media and npr on radio and I don't mind his talk show, though. It's a lot more intelligent than the TV show.

[Yazman]

WHAT THE FUCK. Kun Fana.

WHAT THE FUCK. That clip of Bill Maher and O'Reilly.

I never thought I would say this.. ever. But I agree 100% with O'Reilly on that. I mean he's saying what we revolutionary leftists have been saying for decades- they're exactly the fucking same.

Thats pretty funny, to hear O'Reilly of all people saying that.

[Conquer or Die]

1. There was no misuse of language in what he said. The fact that the conversation almost primarily focuses on this proves the lack of thinking that occurs on OI.

2. O'Reilley is a piece of shit. He's also fucking hilarious. See: H.L. Mencken

3. If Obama institutes universal healthcare, ends imperialist war and starts ruining the lives of fascist CEOs then I'll proudly say he fought on the side of socialism; regardless of post-anarcho-techno-unitary-neo-orthodox-marxist-lenninist-avakianist interpretations post three months of executive rule declare matter-of-factly in a clear vindication of reds in the tradition of free thinking :laugh:.

And no, I don't think he'll be good for the movement.

[synthesis]

Yea, I think O'Reilly's a fairly decent guy. He has his agenda but he articulates it pretty well and he's pretty fair in what he says.

He's moderate (in an American way) in politics and conservative, that is traditional America values, in the way of social issues.

I wouldn't go that far. He's an entertainer. He panders to his audience, which is mostly on the older side. You can certainly see that in the Maher interview: "Some people are scared of change. Some people don't want change." And so on.

But obviously, as with Glenn Beck, entertainers dissemble by their nature, and O'Reilly is no different. That's why you'll probably hear him saying more reasonable stuff when he's not on his own program.

[brigadista]

I wouldn't go that far. He's an entertainer. He panders to his audience, which is mostly on the older side. You can certainly see that in the Maher interview: "Some people are scared of change. Some people don't want change." And so on.

But obviously, as with Glenn Beck, entertainers dissemble by their nature, and O'Reilly is no different. That's why you'll probably hear him saying more reasonable stuff when he's not on his own program.

hes a buffoon

[GPDP]

Yeah, O RLY gets a lot of shit, but he is known to occasionally say some interesting things. And once Glenn Beck came along, he doesn't seem that clownish anymore.

The real, far-right proto-fascist piece of shit is Lou Dobbs IMO. Even O RLY is not as virulently hateful of immigrants as this asshole. Nor is he as much of a right-populist.

[GracchusBabeuf]

2tJjNVVwRCY
:laugh:

[RGacky3]

I love that video, the Moral crusader himself, for the children.

[hugsandmarxism]

2tJjNVVwRCY
:laugh:

I'll see you're clip and raise you a sex scandal: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html

[Bud Struggle]

Moderate?? Are you kidding me? What planet are you from. Well, I'm from the country that elected Reagan for two terms then Bush for one than Clinton for two terms, Bush for two terms and now Obama. That's who the American people are--and O'Reilly is somewhere in the middle of all of that.




Pretty fair, really? You've gotta be kidding me, his show is a right wing joke, its only made less of a joke, by other fox shows that are even more of a joke.What makes him a joke? He's watched and believed by a huge segment of the American populace. He may be vastly right wing to the leftist fringe like Communists, but in the world of mainstream American politics--he's maybe a bit right of center.

He has (I'm pretty sure) the #1 show on cable news TV. He's a major player in American news punditry. Now YOU may not like him, that's fair--but he does speak for and to lots of Americans.

[synthesis]

He's watched and believed by a huge segment of the American populace. He may be vastly right wing to the leftist fringe like Communists, but in the world of mainstream American politics--he's maybe a bit right of center. ARBzAKSJOWw

I don't know how you got "a little right of center" from "textbook reactionary." Perhaps that is the state of mainstream American politics... if that's the case, we're fucked.

[RGacky3]

Well, I'm from the country that elected Reagan for two terms then Bush for one than Clinton for two terms, Bush for two terms and now Obama. That's who the American people are--and O'Reilly is somewhere in the middle of all of that.

Ahh, the power of fear, but no, O'Reilly is not in the middle of that. Plus those are Americas only choices really, so not a good example. Hell, Russia elected Stalin, does'nt mean Russians are all pro-Gulag.


What makes him a joke? He's watched and believed by a huge segment of the American populace. He may be vastly right wing to the leftist fringe like Communists, but in the world of mainstream American politics--he's maybe a bit right of center.


What makes him a joke, is its blatent disregard for fact and fairness and his politicizing of everything to make a cheap political point. His obvious double standards, his obvious nit pickign of facts to find ones that suit his political points, and his clear clear clear bias.

In the world of Mainstream American politics, he is still far right. Maybe not in your country club though, or your "biker" buddies.

If you talk to Americans, and as then what they think of communist pricniples, such as a right to the fruits of your labor, and the democratising of the work place. You'll find there are a lot of American Socialists.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Apparently Bill O'Reilly has no idea what classic liberalism is

[Bud Struggle]

Apparently Bill O'Reilly has no idea what classic liberalism is

Maybe maybe not. "Classic Liberalism" has nothing to do with what he's talking about. O'Reilly is talking about Liberalism in the context of AMERICAN politics. Nothing else. It's how we define it in our own country. People in South America or France or Australia define it in the context of their political structures.

O'Reilly is speaking to Americans in Americanisms. Nothing wrong with that. Every country's politicians and pundits do the same.

[hugsandmarxism]

http://i.cdn.turner.com/trutv/thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/1013043mackris9.gif (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris10.html)

Gotta love Billo :laugh:

And TomK, i don't think he can be considered "somewhere in the middle." And he's been taking hits in the ratings, so if his crooning about having "the number one rated news show" is even true, it won't be for long. Keith Olbermann has made a career out of busting his chops, and a good one at that. People don't like this tool, and it doesn't take a communist to tell that he's a right-wing dipshit with no character.

[Bud Struggle]

And TomK, i don't think he can be considered "somewhere in the middle." And he's been taking hits in the ratings, so if his crooning about having "the number one rated news show" is even true, it won't be for long. Keith Olbermann has made a career out of busting his chops, and a good one at that. People don't like this tool, and it doesn't take a communist to tell that he's a right-wing dipshit with no character.

OK YOU don't like him--but even at second in the ratings he's a major factor in American news.

[hugsandmarxism]

OK YOU don't like him--but even at second in the ratings he's a major factor in American news.

Yeah, a major factor for grumpy old catholic men who think society has fallen to shit because of Liberals, immigrants, and a lack of prayer in schools. :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah, a major factor for grumpy old catholic men who think society has fallen to shit because of Liberals, immigrants, and a lack of prayer in schools. :rolleyes:

But unlike the Anarchists that get the crap beat out of them and just fall of the face of the earth--he has a forum. :D

[Robert]

If anyone is interested in facts, O'Reilly is continuing to trounce both MSNBC and CNN combined, this even after the repudiation of the Right in the 2008 elections. No one in the industry disputes the numbers.

This says many things, but I actually think it's just a matter of superior show business. Keith Olbermann is smug, dour, and preachy; he has no sense of self-deprecation, never admits a mistake, and never, ever, ever offers an opposing viewpoint.

O'Reilly invites people on every night for the express purpose of disagreeing with him, and they do, including representatives of PETA, Code Pink, and the New Black Panther Party. It's kind of like the difference between OI and the Theory fora on Revleft. Know what I mean? Boring versus interesting?

Here are the numbers. Probably another Faux News fabrication.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/02/06/obama-administration-boosts-oreilly-factor-tv-ratings/12326

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Yeah I like O'Reilly's show way more than Olbermann even though I probably share many many more views with Olbermann.

His show sucks. There is NO debate on it, it's all a load of fluff about how great Democrats are and how the GOP sucks. Not to mention, he has the exact same people on every episode and then 1 guest at the end who hasn't been there before.

Though O'Reilly does have Dick Morris come on and he's a buffoon.

O'Reilly gets higher ratings because he's vastly more entertaining, and he's on the only obviously right-leaning channel in the market (while MSNBC does an incredibly shitty job going the other way).

[IcarusAngel]

Robert the Great - you're a total clown. Olbermann has surpassed O'reilly in the ratings several times, including in the run up to the 2008 election. Olbermann has also admitted his mistakes when he gets a fact wrong, the difference between him and O'Liely is that Olbermann doesn't constantly say stupid shit like that 80% of single mothers are on welfare, that the US gives more of a proportation of its GDP to foreign aid than any other country, and other complete BS.

O'Liely's lies have filled entire books. Second, O'Reilly covers mostly trivially issues like Natalie Holloway, Lacy Peterson, Chandra Levy, the "dangerous" influence of rap culture and ultimate fighting, and immigrants.

Also, when he has "opposing people" on his show rarely does any thought provoking discussion take place and it's mostly that pompous asshole screaming over his guests.

Olbermann at least unearths right-wing lies, which is helpful. Unfortunately, investigative reporting is lacking even in his show. He should do more coverage of issues relating to poverty etc., although is war coverage and coverage of social issues are quite good. This makes sense as he is moderately liberal.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Second, O'Reilly covers mostly trivially issues like Natalie Holloway, Lacy Peterson, Chandra Levy, the "dangerous" influence of rap culture and ultimate fighting, and immigrants.

LoL yeah that's very true.

He'll take a white girl getting abducted in Jamaica and turn it into an argument against immigration LoL

[IcarusAngel]

That's the type of stuff people like him feed off of. I remember when Gary Condit was being interviewed by Connie Chung, and O'Liely came right out and said that her shining moment (paraphrasing) was that she was tough about the Levy questions. Here you have a congressman that was involved in God only knows what serious scandal, and O'Liely thought that Chandra Levy was the most important questions to ask him, just because of hype.

Of course, we now know that Condit had absolutely nothing to do with her disappearance, he was not a suspect, and the whole thing was wasted television time. Furthermore, that incident pretty much wrecked her career as far as I'm concerned, when she previously was a semi-respectable journalist as compared to the standards of the television medi.

What liars like O'reilly don't realize, is that these stories are nothing more than sensationalism and stupidity, as Herbert Marcuse put it. By focusing on this nonsense, he's actually hurting his own cause, assuming his cause is to protect America. If he and the media had been reporting the Bush administrations refusal to take the terrorist threats seriously - maybe there would have been enough pressure on them for them to forsee the 9-11 terrorist attacks. And then he could take credit for saving America (god knows he takes credit for every other bullshit issue he starts).

As for this "more ratings nonsense," that just proves how stupid cable news as a whole is. Perhaps even still worse than network news. 60% of the American public deny evolution, and these people probably make up about 80% of the cable television audience, the type of people who enjoy Dukes of Hazard being made into a movie as Bill Maher put it, so that's actually an insult that he gets more ratings in other words.

It's also been shown that the more you watch Fox News, the less you know about the world. They're more likely to be confused about where Iraq is, who has and who doesn't have WMDs, etc.

"Thus, 78 percent of Bush supporters who watch Fox News said they thought the United States had found evidence of a direct link to al-Qaeda, while 50 percent of Bush supporters who rely on NPR/PBS thought so.
"
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EJ04Ak01.html

This proves if you want to understand foreign policy and international relations you have to do research projects or start reading Foreign Policy magazines and so on, rather than getting your news from networks or cable news, but this is stuff you really could be getting sitting on the couch eating Tostitos. The "old US" media, with fewer channels, actually gave you more information, instead of bombarding you with crap.

The US has been ranked about forth-fourth in terms of freedom of the press, which is disgusting. That means there isn't much diversity of opinion in the US press. That's way down there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcz_NHAFGS0

And to top it off, pundits like O'Liely and Limbaugh etc. even constantly mistakes basic facts about American history and the world. That's basically what Keith Olbermann calls these clowns on, from Limbaugh conflating the DoI with the Constitution of the United States, to O'Reilly getting his historical facts of WW II mixed up, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tOpm1c7IN4

I used to post on a "pro-American" site like Protest-Warrior and they didn't even know that the framer of the constitution was also an author of the Federalist papers, or the difference between John Adams and John Quincy Adams.

There's a quote in the movie "Platoon," "Hell is the impossibility of reason" and that's the region people like Robert the Great, O'Liely, etc. like to dwell in.

[Robert]

that's the region people like Robert the Great, O'Liely, etc. like to dwell in.

Icarus, you are CHANNELING Keith Olbermoron, up to and including the temper tantrum(s) :laugh:and gratuitous insult! Try switching channels occasionally.

Look, my angry friend, all I really said was that O'Reilly's numbers are consistently higher than that of your idol (absolutely EVERYONE except you acknowledges this) and that he consistently invites guests on who disagree with him. They know they get to express their views -- that's why they come back.

You conspicuously fail to cite a single example of Olbermoron having anyone on his show who dissents, ever, from the party line. Much less do you get really spirited argument. If that doesn't bother you even a little, you have a ... well, I promised not to insult anyone today.:)

[synthesis]

Look, my angry friend, all I really said was that O'Reilly's numbers are consistently higher than that of your idol

You know who else had high ratings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum)?

[Armand Iskra]

I think he meant "classic" as in "old-school," like LBJ and the rest of the Democratic Party before Clinton, with all of his triangulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clintonian_triangulation) and so on. Again, as long as you aren't one of those whiny bastards always complaining about how we Americans misuse the word "liberal," his statement isn't too far off the mark.

Perhaps, Obama tried to act like roosevelt since the current economic crisis reminds of the depression of the 1930s. Obama seemed likely to conduct another "new deal" through the "stimulus bill" being enacted.

But i think, he's still far from a socialist. Welfare capitalist can be.

[GPDP]

Perhaps, Obama tried to act like roosevelt since the current economic crisis reminds of the depression of the 1930s. Obama seemed likely to conduct another "new deal" through the "stimulus bill" being enacted.

But i think, he's still far from a socialist. Welfare capitalist can be.

Please. Even by welfare capitalist standards, Obama's still closer to Clinton than Roosevelt. And that's not a good thing.

[Bud Struggle]

up to and including the temper tantrum(s) :laugh:and gratuitous insult! Try switching channels occasionally.

I've been getting some of that too, Brother Robert. It seems that the idea of a "Classless Society" is going to work on a number of levels after the Revolution. :D

[Robert]

Kun Fana, I too suspect that O'Reilly is an anti-Semite who wants to take over the government by violent force and then invade neighboring countries.

We'd better keep a close watch on this fascist!

[swirling_vortex]

2tJjNVVwRCY
:laugh:
You can even dance to it! :D

5j2YDq6FkVE

[synthesis]

Kun Fana, I too suspect that O'Reilly is an anti-Semite who wants to take over the government by violent force and then invade neighboring countries.

We'd better keep a close watch on this fascist!I was just trying to say that popularity isn't necessarily a good barometer of correctness.

By the way, I thought this was an amusing take on O'Reilly from Roger Ebert:


Bill, I am concerned that you have been losing touch with reality recently. Did you really say you are more powerful than any politician?

That reminds me of the famous story about Squeaky the Chicago Mouse. It seems that Squeaky was floating on his back along the Chicago River one day. Approaching the Michigan Avenue lift bridge, he called out: Raise the bridge! I have an erection!

[Robert]

I was just trying to say that popularity isn't necessarily a good barometer of correctness.

Oh, I know you were. I just get tired of the constant resort to fascist baiting every time we get into an argument here.

I'll even go further and say that even non-political figures need to be monitored for b.s. because of their power to incite violence. Of course, we've got two or three threads going now that seem to encourage violence as healthy, necessaryu, or inevitable.

[synthesis]

Oh, I know you were. I just get tired of the constant resort to fascist baiting every time we get into an argument here.

Yeah, that's why the wiki link was there - just being conscious of the cliche nature of such an argument, but that doesn't make it invalid.


I'll even go further and say that even non-political figures need to be monitored for b.s. because of their power to incite violence. Of course, we've got two or three threads going now that seem to encourage violence as healthy, necessaryu, or inevitable.

Monitored by whom?

[Bud Struggle]

Monitored by whom?

The Communists, of course. So these figures can be exposed for the charlatans they are right here on the pages of RevLeft. Let those Right Wing blowhards quake in fear of that! :)

[Robert]

Monitored by whom?Well, by everyone, including you and a competitive press. And that is being done daily. We have pretty good checks and balances on abuses of power on television. Remember that several rich and powerful television evangelists -- Jim Baaker and Jimmy Swaggart come to mind, but there were several others -- were cut down to size, lost their ministries and money, and a few went to prison, in the 1980's. They messed up, they got caught, and down they went. Neither their money nor their conservative politics helped them at all.

So don't worry about Bill O'Reilly. Worry about Dancing With the Stars. The horror, the horror.

[Armand Iskra]

Please. Even by welfare capitalist standards, Obama's still closer to Clinton than Roosevelt. And that's not a good thing.

Well...
If you say so.

But still, his idea cannot save America from a crisis despite having vassals. The worst is that the status quo remains despite different presidents in America.