Rachael Maddow Book - Drift - IT'S WORKING GUYS!! THEY ARE SLOWLY GETTING IT!

[cheapseats]

I don't know what it is, but, I hope some people realize that we truly have no friends in the media. And, I don't think I want a "friend" in the media who pushes Obama and leftist policies as Maddow does.

MAINSTREAM CORPORATE-OWNED MEDIA is an entirely different animal from FREE AND INDEPENDENT PRESS.

Commoners must BUILD THE LATTER, just like back in the day. Heads up: THE PAY SUCKS.

 

[cheapseats]

Exactly. She writes a book about the evils of war, the extravagance and boondoggles of war-related spending, and perhaps she's right about that. But what she will never, ever acknowledge is that the same government doing these wasteful things is also incapable of running welfare programs. She's undoubtedly talking about the wasted spending overseas and the ridiculous Homeland Security budget, but try to point out the same waste and fraud when it emerges in her beloved Homeland Social Security, and the argument quickly becomes "We don't need a smaller government. Just a better one!"

She would rather have a prowar progressive in office than an anti-war conservative. I already know she's not capable of intellectual honesty, and while it's true there are more books than time, there's no valid excuse to push aside endless better reads in favor of her tripe.

This isn't her "getting it." This is an anti-capitalist making a capitalistic buck at the expense of the true anti-war believers.

By "independently" (unofficially) HERDING THEM BACK TOWARD THE LEFT (the flip side of the War 4 Profit coin), despite Obama's indisputable trashing of certain key campaign promises.

 

[cheapseats]

...But what she will never, ever acknowledge is that the same government doing these wasteful things is also incapable of running welfare programs...

NOR is she likely to admit how many of our "engagements" stem from Do Gooders' pie-in-the-sky determination to SAVE EVERYONE.

 

[cheapseats]

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/rachel-maddow-net-worth/


"CelebrityNetworth" pegs Rachel Maddow's net worth at TWELVE POINT FIVE MILLION.

It is a ROBUST paycheck that, after expenses, accumulates $12.5 million of wealth.

Rachel Maddow has kept her trap shut on Anti War for a lotta months of paychecks.

 

[flynn]

In my experience with left leaning statists, they are among the worst self righteous, arrogant, violent, intellectually dishonest, incredulous, dogmatic, and angry bunch of people on this planet. Their religion is the state. I would not advocate giving kudos to anyone who's endorsing the progressive left liberals ideology.

 

[ZenBowman]

MAINSTREAM CORPORATE-OWNED MEDIA is an entirely different animal from FREE AND INDEPENDENT PRESS.

Commoners must BUILD THE LATTER, just like back in the day. Heads up: THE PAY SUCKS.

Wouldn't any non-state media be corporate-owned, almost by definition?

 

[cheapseats]

Wouldn't any non-state media be corporate-owned, almost by definition?

Indeed NOT. As an obvious but certainly not the only example, Wall Street Journal used to be FAMILY OWNED & OPERATED. I have read reports of REGRET among the Bancrofts.

Educating the (poor) masses has ALWAYS been a key component of getting out from under tyranny, and (cheaper) newsprint has historically (logically) been commoner among Commoners than (costlier) books/educations.

 

[ZenBowman]

Indeed NOT. As an obvious but certainly not the only example, Wall Street Journal used to be FAMILY OWNED & OPERATED. I have read reports of REGRET among the Bancrofts.

Educating the (poor) masses has ALWAYS been a key component of getting out from under tyranny, and (cheaper) newsprint has historically (logically) been commoner among Commoners than (costlier) books/educations.

I wasn't using corporate owned as a technical term, but meant it more as "owned by private interests".

Technically, a magazine owned by the Bush family could also be described as family-owned, but we'd hardly call it independent. At the end, it depends on what people want to read, the dominant news channels will reflect what people want to read, hear and watch.

 

[cheapseats]

I wasn't using corporate owned as a technical term, but meant it more as "owned by private interests".

CORPORATE-OWNED is an extremely technical term. It exonerates individuals of responsibility in a way that Private Ownership does NOT. It places the interests of SHAREHOLDERS above . . . what? Truth. Family interests. Personal ambition. Life is hard and people are TRICKY.

"Free and Independent" does not automatically parlay into "Accurate and Scrupulous".

INDIVIDUALS AMASSING TOO MUCH MONEY/INFLUENCE/POWER is the crux of our (unsustainable) #WealthGap. Americans GOING WEAK AT THE KNEES in the face of Stardom and Wealth? Let's just say that UNBIASED, RELIABLE JOURNALISM is not the only Principle to go by the wayside.

Technically, a magazine owned by the Bush family could also be described as family-owned, but we'd hardly call it independent.

Opposite. Technically, people of Bush's ilk get TOO independent...and do whatever the fuck they please, irrespective of fairness or fallout...gallingly confident that their Wealth will protect them from the consequences of their designs and decisions.

At the end, it depends on what people want to read, the dominant news channels will reflect what people want to read, hear and watch.

Yes and no.

Absent physical assembly en masse and in unison, also absent the HANDICAP DU JOUR to win the capricious attention/resources of Professional Saviors, the "Power of the People" lies in their WALLETS.

That said, they WILL choose from among AVAILABLE SHIT.

Michael J. Fox, AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT: They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

 

[lester1/2jr]

I wasn't going to read it, it seems like a rehash of stuff I've already read at mises and elsewhere, but the paleos have convinced me to buy it, maybe a few copies.

 

[cheapseats]

Ron Paul should OWN this issue.

Ron Paul should be able to steal this thunder, and CAPITALIZE on the (it's about time!) resurgence of Anti War sentiment.

I'd like to hear Ron Paul say something along the lines of:

"I can't quote #RickSantorum verbatim because I don't swear, but this really is b.s. I mean, I have been saying FOR YEARS things that other people are only now trotting out in our ridiculous AND RIDICULOUSLY EXPENSIVE Election Season. Not 'just' a la carte principles, but SEASONAL a la carte principles. NO ONE running for President, Obama included, can be spun to be more ANTI NEEDLESS WAR than I am. NO ONE running for president can be spun to be more ANTI WASTEFUL/WRONGFUL SPENDING than I am."

 

[whippoorwill]

I like books.

 

[cheapseats]

I like books.

Me, too.

Which has nothing to do with:

1.) Rachel Maddow drawing a big salary while NOT beating the Anti War Drum for most of Obama's term

2.) Rachel Maddow "suddenly", IN A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN IN WHICH SHE HAS A CLEAR FAVORITE, using her position to PIMP HER BOOK containing, from what I gather, many points that Ron Paul has been making for years WITH CONSPICUOUSLY LITTLE MAINSTREAM MEDIA COVERAGE.

Great, great, great if she has REALIZED the wrongness of Perpetual War. EVERY conversion is a good one. But this is a VERY educated, VERY influential woman who is CONSPICUOUSLY late to the Anti War party.

 

[Origanalist]

Seriously? This is what we're becoming? The Koch Brothers are evil ,and Rachel Maddow is a must-read.

Ugh.

 

[cheapseats]

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/rachel-maddow-net-worth/


"CelebrityNetworth" pegs Rachel Maddow's net worth at TWELVE POINT FIVE MILLION.

It is a ROBUST paycheck that, after expenses, accumulates $12.5 million of wealth.

Rachel Maddow has kept her trap shut on Anti War for a lotta months of paychecks.

In my experience with left leaning statists, they are among the worst self righteous, arrogant, violent, intellectually dishonest, incredulous, dogmatic, and angry bunch of people on this planet. Their religion is the state. I would not advocate giving kudos to anyone who's endorsing the progressive left liberals ideology.

Same can be said for those whose religion is Religion and those whose religion is Money/Power (note overlap 'twixt Religion/Money/Power).

Many "left-leaning Statists" MEAN well...they positively PAVE THE ROAD TO HELL with good intentions. They "just" don't get bogged down with pesky details like PAYING for stuff. Or FEASIBILITY...what a buzz-kill THAT is.

#RachelMaddow is a #LimousineLiberal. LimousineLiberals have Money/Power issues, same as/differently from Conservative Rich, but they are also ambitious-unto-greedy about making PHILANTHROPIC NAMES for themselves. At others' expense, natch.

LIMOUSINE LIBERAL is a strong card to play in this election.

NO MATTER HOW BAD THINGS GET, there they are, the Limousine Liberals, arranging for the Middle and Lower Classes to extend yet more here-ya-go help to the Lowest Classes.

Disillusioned Democrats must be made to see that their "party" is also spearheaded by RICH, oblivious, impervious, high-flying, do-as-we-say-not-as-we-do Extraordinary Earners.

 

[bolil]

Newt Gingrich likes to sound like Ron Paul too... Are we winning him over or is he attempting a co-opt coupe? Now apply the same logic to Maddow. I wouldn't buy her book if I got a government bailout.

 

[cheapseats]

The future of the movement includes winning over people who like Beck as well as winning over people who like Maddow. There just aren't enough Andrew Napolitano fans out there to win a presidential election, especially now that Fox fired him for telling the truth.

Amen to that =/

Maddow=Glenn Beck....only............different.

Just as different, and as similar, as they could be.

People who like Maddow and people who like Beck (or any two figurehead Extremists/Inciters) are apt to agree that MAINSTREAM MEDIA STARS FOSTER DIVISIONS IN THE ELECTORATE.

It is in the best interests of the American people and, as it happens, it is in Ron Paul's best interests if #MainstreamMedia becomes the focus of PUBLIC IRE.

They SHOULD be the focus of public ire, on #TrayvonMartin "alone". Ron Paul's name doesn't even have to be MENTIONED to deliver a rant on MEDIA BIAS & MANIPULATION.

ANTI WAR and MEDIA MANIPULATION are two subjects that "naturally" end up showcasing Ron Paul, without TRYING to pimp him.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

It's one thing to appeal to people on the left and the right as individuals. Supporting the book of someone who has repeatedly shown to be hostile to liberty is what is ridiculous and what nobody here should do

 

[cubical]

She is a central planning socialist. I doubt she changed that much.

 

[cheapseats]

#RachelMaddow glosses over the #AfghanWar, AND Obama's escalation of it, while LAVISHING attention on #GayMarriage.

http://wn.com/Rachel_Maddow_On_Obama_LGBT_Fundraiser_New_York_Same-Sex_Marriage_Bill