Idiot/Savant recently declared National MP Dr Nick Smith and National MP Dr Jonathon Coleman to be misogynists for one of them calling Tizard a witch. I thought he was just a little over the top. Especially considering he wrote a "they were begging for it" post a while ago when Mallard called a certain group of women "chinless scarf wearers". But of course, going over the top works very well if you ration your barbs wisely. Which is why he probably shut down his comments section.
But here is idiot again, gushing that Labour list MP Charles Chauvel is keen on lowering the voting age. But dissenting opinion? We'll have none of that in lefty-land - and he deals to Winston Peters with all the cunning of a sewer rat: Rather than the pedophobic attitudes displayed by Winston Peters..
Peters wants to keep the voting age the same. For this opinion, Idiot brands him a "pedophobe". I shudder to think what he'd be called resisting enfranchisement to 12 year olds.
Related Link: Left Wing Tolerance in Action
Update: Thanks pdm; corrected Coleman's name.
But here is idiot again, gushing that Labour list MP Charles Chauvel is keen on lowering the voting age. But dissenting opinion? We'll have none of that in lefty-land - and he deals to Winston Peters with all the cunning of a sewer rat: Rather than the pedophobic attitudes displayed by Winston Peters..
Peters wants to keep the voting age the same. For this opinion, Idiot brands him a "pedophobe". I shudder to think what he'd be called resisting enfranchisement to 12 year olds.
Related Link: Left Wing Tolerance in Action
Update: Thanks pdm; corrected Coleman's name.
What disturbs me more is this idea that children "are not represented" - that somehow their parents do nothing in the best interests of their children.
ReplyDeleteVery anti-family attitude. Will post on that at some stage.
Indeed. It is hard for Idiot to lead a "thoughtful" discussion if he labels his opponents "pedophobes" from the outset.
ReplyDeleteAnd there is much to be fairly said on the moves to turn young adults into full adults, and then argue for the reasons why the government needs to step in and help them move out and be independent from the restrictive bonds of the family...
Comments like that get you a slapping in real life.
ReplyDeleteHere it can get you in court. And Winnie's not shy about doing that!
It's straightforward enough - anyone who doesn't think teenagers should have all the rights of adulthood with none of the responsibilities is a "pedophobe." Same principle as that by which "hate speech" equals "speech I don't like." Liberals are experts at turning their personal prejudices into claims of superior morality - witness the much-loved phrase "I find that offensive," which a person less convinced of their own elevated virtue would render more like "Shut up, asshole."
ReplyDeleteIsn't it Johnathon Coleman or do I have the wrong guy.
ReplyDeleteIdiot Savant seems to have an appropriate first name.
Idiot Savant has always been (IMHO) typical of the left, in that his own comments reek of elitism and that he holds those who refuse to think or debate according to leftist guidelines in disdain.
ReplyDeleteThe internet has allowed we the people to voice our opinions, and the left don't like that. For decades they've had the information market cornered, and as a result of their control, only leftist ideas were discussed, using leftist arguments, leftist dialogue and leftist language.
Suddenly along came the internet, and the left were quite happy at first to continue in the same old way, but soon they began to get nervous, and lately they've got downright paranoid.
For its suddenly dawned on them what the outcome of this could be, and that is that ideas other than their own could (shriek horror), actually be voiced publicly but (tragedy of all tragedies), these ideas could gradually gain wide acceptance in the community and in the end (and this is the suicidal bit) actually become to be seen as superior to the ideas of the left.
The right already know that leftist ideas are riddled with inconsistencies, logical contradictions, superstition and fiction, but for decades we have been unable to express this knowledge because the left's political and social ascendancy has denied us a forum.
Now, we have that forum. Thanks to the internet, talk radio and cable TV, we the people are able to confront the leftists elitists and question their ideas and their assumed ideological superiority.
The left know it, and they know they have no answers to real criticism of their flawed political systems, so they're running.
Idiot and his ivory tower mates like to make noises about trolls and bullying and the rest of it. The real reason they won't accept comments is that they're intellectual cowards promoting a dark destructive and outdated ideology that needs to be consigned to the dustbins of history as soon as possible. Idiot and his ilk know that the public is finally awakening to the deception that has allowed socialism to become culturally ascendant.
I enjoy Ann Coulter's expression- "the left aren't enjoying freedom of expression much these days, now the rabbit has the shotgun".
So get out there, load up with high power cartridges and keep blasting them. Don't be intimidated by the left's attempts to make you feel ashamed. Say what you feel and say it the way you want in the words you want to use. Truth will always win out in the end, and right now, it's got the left running like never before.
You do realise that being convinced the world's media is controlled by a secret cabal is a clear sign of mental illness? I strongly advise you to seek treatment.
ReplyDeleteNo cause for worry Psycho Milt. It's not a secret. And 'cabal' would be far too generous a term for these people. My sources indicate they go by the fearsome name of "Press Association".
ReplyDeleteI "borrowed" the Anne Coulter quote for my blog, Redbaiter. Thanks. :-)
ReplyDeleteAlleging your critics to be insane is classic totalitarian strategy Milt.
ReplyDeleteMy pleasure KG.
ReplyDeleteMan I get pissed off with these ignorant morons who label anyone who refers to the left's totalitarian plans as conspiracy theorists. For God's sake Milt, ITS NO CONSPIRACY. They proclaim their objectives as plain as day all over the net.
Read the Socialist International website. Read the USA Communist Party website. The first thing you realise is how similar the language is, the next thing you realise is how they are both advocating the same objective, that being the gradual global dominance of socialism as a political force at the expense of all other ideas.
Maybe you don't know about Socialist International Milt, given that you show all the symptoms of suffering from "useful idiot" syndrome, but its a powerful world wide organisation.
Helen Klark has been the propaganda officer there for some years. (I don't know if she still is) Tony Blair is a member. So are the Clintons. So is Parekura Horimia and many other members of the Labour caucus and party.
Closely allied to Socialist International is the Progressive Caucus of the Democrats, where you'll find life time commies like Nancy Pelosi, and the same kind of rhetoric- promoting the gradual fashioning of the USA into a one party state.
That's the prime difference between the left and the right you see Milt. You guys want to control and be all powerful We just want to be left alone. We want tiny almost unnoticeable government. We have no global organisation that equals the Communist party, or Socialist International, or the Progressive Caucus of the Democrats. No organisation that has a totalitarian society as its objective. We're just a collection of disorganised individuals fighting for our freedom against the structured and strategised monolithic force of global socialism. ..and like David beat Goliath, so we're going to beat you bastards too Milt.
That last paragraph says all that needs to be said about the difference between the left and the right.
ReplyDeleteAh, my mistake. I didn't realise the Socialist International ("powerful" - really?!), the US Communist Party and the Progressive Caucus of the Democrats control the world's media. Has anyone told Rupert Murdoch? Or, let me guess - he's in on it too, right?
ReplyDeleteControl the world's media? No, merely an infestation. They also infest many academic institutions.
ReplyDeleteThere is a war of ideas going on, with several major players. I have a feeling that Bollard has met a few of them recently - he calls them the "Japanese Housewives". It's funny how conspiracy theories start.
Milt, please explain a couple of things to me. How can Murdoch control the editorial and journalistic output of every newspaper or media outlet that he owns, given he owns both right wing and left wing outlets?
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that every journalist and every editor who works for Murdoch is a right winger, and that Murdoch personally vets everything written or that his editors are hand picked and vet the journalist's work for him, and that EVERY JOURNALIST GOES ALONG WITH THIS??????
..and that all of the journalists who work at Murdoch's left wing outlets are deliberate liars, pumping out left wing stories slanted to suit Rupert, who once again, has every one of them vetted??
If that is so, how come eight times as many journalists in the US (for example) donate to the Democrats as to the Republicans? Please explain this apparent contradiction.
How come in a recent survey, only 6 per cent of journalists identified as Conservative? Please explain this contradiction. (I know, its all a conspiracy right?)
Then we have the BBC, a worldwide broadcasting outlet of significant influence, which issued a report on 18/06/07 criticising itself for left wing bias. Obviously tho, they're right wing right Milt, and its another part of the Murdoch conspiracy?
We also have PBS, which recently launched a massive attack on Murdoch and his media empire. Another bunch of crazed right wing extremists right Milt, who are secretly on Murdoch's payroll?
You don't have a clue Milt. You have merely assertion and left wing fairy stories, the bogey man Murdoch that is a part of the psyche of the pathological leftist, the troll under the bridge they feared as a child and can't let go of in their adulthood.
"Socialist International ("powerful" - really?!), "
ReplyDeleteWell you tell me Milt, with every leftist leader in the world as active members, and almost every other leftist politician in government or in opposition in every country in the world also a member, why wouldn't they be powerful?
You and your pathetic one line or two word put downs and your weak and empty assertions. . You know nothing. You're just the usual empty of argument intellectual coward, comfy in your delusional leftist dream world, walled with lies and propaganda, and where you run each time you're threatened with truth.
Just keep yelping and running like the jackal you are.. soon Milt, there'll be nowhere for your kind to hide.
Poor old Rupe, completely unable to decide the editorial stance of his media outlets. If only he was smart enough to think of installing editors and managers who could provide the outcomes he wanted! It's sad for the right that the people owning media companies are so thick, eh?
ReplyDelete"...with every leftist leader in the world as active members, and almost every other leftist politician in government or in opposition in every country in the world also a member, why wouldn't (the Socialist International) be powerful?"
Yeah, how ridiculous of me to suspect you of being a conspiracy theory nutter. What was I thinking?
"...soon Milt, there'll be nowhere for your kind to hide."
Not that the right promote totalitarian-style solutions or anything...
"You and your pathetic one line or two word put downs and your weak and empty assertions..."
You'll find I can write depressiingly long, argumentative posts when responding to people who write something that isn't ridiculous. Unfortunately, your posts consist mainly of the ridiculous. Consider the fantasy above ("We're just a collection of disorganised individuals fighting for our freedom against the structured and strategised monolithic force of global socialism...), in which you yet again portray the left as some kind of powerful monolith that should come with capital letters and a trademark symbol, and the right as some kind of downtrodden underdog - cheerfully disclaiming for it any ability to organise political parties, lobby groups, large corporations, paramilitary groups,funding bodies, secret cabals, etc, etc... What are the rest of us meant to make of someone publicly indulging such a bizarre fantasy? I mean, really? Do you honestly imagine you're going to be take seriously?
If his sole objective is to make a sh*t load of money, then "poor old rupe" is achieving his game plan. It's possible everything else is a distraction to him?
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's a conspiracy theory to point out the political strength of various organisations and examine the influence they have, the funds they possess and the profile of the membership. This is a fundamental aspect of the study of political science.
The membership behind Greenpeace and Amnesty explain their relative success in bringing focus to events and people. They operate as transnational lobby groups, with effective national based chapters. Does mentioning these groups make me a conspiracy theorist? I am not claiming they control the world, but I'm sure some academics out there have written papers on how effective they are in influencing policy.
Redbaiter is saying these organisations exist, they have considerable influence, a significant membership and international connections.
That doesn't make it a "conspiracy theory" and I don't think Redbaiter hasn't implied one.
Obviously, the difference of opinion must lie in the perceived capability to influence.
"What are the rest of us"
ReplyDeletePlease nominate who you're speaking for besides yourself Milt, so I can judge if their thinking processes and opinions are any improvement upon your superstitious, baseless and unqualified (by logic or fact)assertions.
Zen, here's Redbaiter:
ReplyDelete"For decades (the left have) had the information market cornered, and as a result of their control, only leftist ideas were discussed, using leftist arguments, leftist dialogue and leftist language."
It's not merely astoundingly, obviously wrong, but a direct statement that left-wing groups control the media, presumably in some secret fashion given there's no obvious indication of such to the reasonable observer - ie, it's a conspiracy theory.
Re Murdoch, I haven't paid much attention for a while, but a couple of decades back, ie exactly in this period when Redbaiter claims only leftist ideas could be published, Murdoch was notorious for his ironclad determination that his editors should ensure a right-wing agenda was promoted. I dunno, maybe he's less virulent in his old age, but Redbaiter painting him as somehow at a loss to control his evil left-wing workforce is just laughable.
While I'm at it, how about this laughable claim:
"Idiot and his ivory tower mates like to make noises about trolls and bullying and the rest of it. The real reason they won't accept comments is that they're intellectual cowards..."
Yes, obviously I/S is such an intellectual coward that he resorts to calling people trolls, rather than addressing their cogent and rational arguments such as:
"Get a life, wimps."
"Uptight fuckwit. You really need to get laid."
"We've found a witch - may we burn her!"
What a disservice, pulling the plug on comments and thus depriving us of such masterpieces of debating excellence. Oh, the shame!
Milt, I have provided survey results, statistics and questions of logic that you have steadfastly refused to answer.
ReplyDeleteYou continue with your psychotic assertions concerning Murdoch in the same way a frightened child will refuse to free themselves from the delusion that there is a troll under his bed.
You have not presented one fact or any logical chain of thought to support your claims. Your only answer to my posts is sneering derision and expressions of assumed intellectual superiority, because, in the manner of all such barren of argument leftists, such cheap illusions (necessary to bolster your dwindling self image), are all you really have.
This exchange shows quite clearly that you are just a demented fear-mongerer without a fact and without one iota of real knowledge on the issue.
You can sneer all you want. The fact remains that all you can produce in regard to the real argument is baseless allegation, in an extremely apt demonstration of the kind of hysteria that is always to be found underpinning the thinking processes of time warped leftists.
(and the same goes for your imaginary friends)
http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/06/2007-06-30FairnessDoctrine.jpg
"You have not presented one fact or any logical chain of thought to support your claims."
ReplyDeleteEr, my claims? My claims amount to pointing out that a belief that the media is under the control of some left-wing cabal is a conspiracy theory. Are you using a form letter here?
But what the hell - if we're going to regard that as a "claim" rather than a "statement of the obvious," it's a claim rather thoroughly backed up by Messrs Murdoch and Maxwell, who dominated British media publishing at exactly the time you declare it to have been under the control of the left - the beginning of the 90s, immediately pre-internet. A quick Google will tell you the kind of guys they were/are - no survey results required.
Your problem, and the reason your survey results are irrelevant, is this: the media is controlled not by journalists, but by its owners, who appoint its managers and editors. There is the odd public broadcaster, but most media is in private, very much non-left-wing hands.
I do have to thank you for linking to the cartoon though - it illustrates quite clearly that for you, the media is left-wing simply because it isn't right-wing enough for you. Presumably it doesn't enter your head that a commo might have the same problem with the media from the opposite direction, but I can assure you they do.
"My claims amount to pointing out that a belief that the media is under the control of some left-wing cabal"
ReplyDeleteA silly lie. For one thing, you are claiming even in this very post as in previous posts "Murdoch was notorious for his ironclad determination that his editors should ensure a right-wing agenda was promoted"
That's "your claim" Milt.
So where's your evidence?
Secondly, I've have never claimed that the media is "under the control of any cabal". As Zen, who apparently doesn't suffer from your own knowledge deficiency, tried to explain to you, it is a cultural problem. The political culture of journalists is left wing. Thirdly, its not just Redbaiter, as you weakly allege. Robin Aitken, who spent his entire career as a BBC journalist, has written a book accusing the BBC of institutionalised leftism. He puts it quite well-
"there is a centre-left consensus at the BBC that colours its entire output and undermines its impartiality. With a few honourable exceptions, the BBC views every issue through the prism of left-wing, secular, anti-western thinking. It is the Guardian of the air. It has a knee-jerk antipathy to America, the free market, big business, religion, British institutions, the Conservative party and Israel; it supports the human rights culture, the Palestinians, Irish republicanism, European integration, multiculturalism and a liberal attitude towards drugs and a host of social issues."
You want to go back to 1990 Milt? Fine. I've got plenty of data from back then that shows you're talking absolute fantasy.
Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative. (In 2004, a study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found the national media to be 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative.)
The independent media analyst S. Robert Lichter looked at 10 major surveys on the political beliefs and voting patterns of mainstream print and broadcast journalists from 1962 to 1996. As Lichter writes, ``the pattern of results is compelling.'' The percentage of journalists who were classified as ``liberals'' were, survey to survey: 57, 53, 59, 42, 54, 50, 32, 55, 22 and 61. The percentage classified as ``conservative,'' survey by survey: 28, 17, 18, 19, 17, 21, 12, 17, 5 and 9.
A 1996 survey of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers found 61 percent self-identified as ``Democrat or liberal`` or ``lean to Democrat or liberal," vs. only 15 percent Republican or leaning Republican.
The Freedom Forum/Roper Center survey of 139 Washington-based bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, April 1996.
Question #49: How would you characterize your political orientation?
22 % Liberal
39 % Liberal to Moderate
30 % Moderate
7 % Moderate to Conservative
2 % Conservative
Question #53: Did you vote for Bill Clinton, George Bush, Ross Perot, or some other candidate?
89 % Bill Clinton
7 % George Bush
2 % Ross Perot
2 % Other
89% of Washington reporters voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. while 7% voted for George Bush
"There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias." -- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.
In 1964, 1968, 1972 and 1976, at least four-fifths of the media elite voted Democratic, according to a survey conducted by social scientists S. Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman for their book, The Media Elite. Even George McGovern, the Democrats’ 1972 presidential nominee and one of the most liberal candidates to ever seek the White House, won 81% of journalists’ votes.
When U.S. News & World Report’s Kenneth Walsh polled his fellow White House reporters about their votes in the five presidential elections from 1976 to 1992, he found 86% of the votes went to Democratic candidates vs. only 12% for Republicans. As Walsh relayed in his 1996 book, Feeding the Beast, none of the reporters he questioned voted for Ronald Reagan in 1984, the year Reagan won a 49-state landslide over Democrat Walter Mondale.
Bill Clinton was the overwhelming choice of nearly 90% of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents surveyed by the Freedom Forum after the 1992 presidential election. As for Newt Gingrich’s 1994 Contract with America, most of these same journalists (59%) dismissed it as a campaign ploy; only three percent believed the Contract was "a serious campaign reform proposal."
In 1996, the American Society of Newspaper Editors surveyed more than 1,000 reporters at newspapers across the country. A wide majority (61%) identified themselves as "Democrat or liberal" or leaning in that direction, while barely one in six (15%) used "Republican or conservative" to describe their views. That closely matched a 1985 Los Angeles Times survey of 2,700 journalists, which found three times as many self-identified liberals as conservatives (55% to 17%) in U.S. newsrooms.
The 1985 L. A. Times survey also showed that most reporters hold doctrinaire liberal views on most major political, social and economic issues. Huge majorities said they were for legalized abortion (82%), against increased defense spending (80%), in favor of more gun control (78%), and, during those tense days of the Cold War, favored a so-called "nuclear freeze" which would ban all future nuclear missile deployments (84%).
Go away Milt, you're a boring time warped old commie cave dweller, clueless on this issue and full of extreme left allegations that are so false and so discredited and so dated they're a joke..
Fine set of right-wing talking points you've pulled off American fellow mouth-frothers' web sites there. I guess you missed this bit from my last comment:
ReplyDelete"Your problem, and the reason your survey results are irrelevant, is this: the media is controlled not by journalists, but by its owners, who appoint its managers and editors. There is the odd public broadcaster, but most media is in private, very much non-left-wing hands."
For an illustration of this, and a backup of Murdoch's editorial influence, have a read of this transcript of a documentary about him, in which we find him buying up newspapers, and those newspapers then immediately and drastically changing their format and editorial stance - no matter how many of their journos answered "left" on a survey.
"Fine set of right-wing talking points you've pulled off American fellow mouth-frothers' web sites there."
ReplyDeleteGreat rebuttal Milt. I guess that'll teach me to do doctrinal commies like you the courtesy of facts, statistics and rational argument. ..and I guess the point that I also referred to the BBC completely escaped your simian consciousness.
"the media is controlled not by journalists, but by its owners, who appoint its managers and editors."
You keep making this assertion Milt, but have not provided one skerrick of evidence to support it. You have not even tried to answer the obvious logical questions this assertion raises. ( the ones I have asked of you some posts ago)You act like they don't exist. That Milt is blatant intellectual cowardice.
Frontline??? For God's sake stop wasting my time you silly old commie loon-
Since January 1983, FRONTLINE has served as American public television's - PBS - flagship public affairs series. In 1999 it was discovered that PBS stations had been sharing their donor lists with Democrats. In return, Democrats made their lists of donors available to PBS stations. This exchanging of donor lists had been taking place since 1981. It seems that both PBS and the Democrats sensed that they attracted supporters with similar views.
During the Watergate hearings, PBS interrupted regular programs to present gavel-to-gavel coverage of the event. However, PBS refused to alter its regular programming for President Clinton's impeachment proceedings as well as any of the fund raising scandals during his administration.
Also, questions have been raised about the liberal bias in its programming as well as an agenda that seems to favor Democrats. In 1995, a collection of critical articles was published in Public Broadcasting & the Public Trust", edited by David Horowitz and Laurence Jarvik. A few years later, the book, PBS: Behind the Screen, by Laurence Jarvik, also painted an unflattering portrait of public TV. In a review of the book, the Wall Street Journal wrote, "Again and again, Mr. Jarvik provides examples of dishonesty and hypocrisy at the heart of the public broadcasting enterprise".
PBS and Frontline have even less credibility than you Milt, and that's saying something. Of course the real point here is how ignorant you are with your tired old discredited viewpoints. Its like arguing electrical circuitry with a troglodyte.
I apologise for my failure to imagine the concept that the owners of a business would control its direction by appointing appropriate management is so foreign to you that you consider it a baseless assertion in need of proof. Sorry or not, I'm not going to provide proof the world is round, either. Work it out for yourself.
ReplyDeleteI presume by "logical problems" you mean this:
"Milt, please explain a couple of things to me. How can Murdoch control the editorial and journalistic output of every newspaper or media outlet that he owns, given he owns both right wing and left wing outlets?
Are you saying that every journalist and every editor who works for Murdoch is a right winger, and that Murdoch personally vets everything written or that his editors are hand picked and vet the journalist's work for him, and that EVERY JOURNALIST GOES ALONG WITH THIS??????
..and that all of the journalists who work at Murdoch's left wing outlets are deliberate liars, pumping out left wing stories slanted to suit Rupert, who once again, has every one of them vetted??"
You know what RB? The vast majority of the workforce in the auto industry are lefties by your standards. (Hell, most of the world's population is a leftie by your standards, but bear with me.) And yet, somehow the design and manufacture of motor vehicles follows the direction of auto company owners, through their management. Somehow, (impossible but true!), it happens without the owners personally vetting every potential worker and individually supervising them. Perhaps you're a stranger to the world of work?
I tire of this. I didn't mention the BBC because the existence of the occasional public broadcaster doesn't alter my point, which you'd know if you'd actually read it. I linked to Frontline because it's a transcript of witness comments, without commentary. Perhaps Murdoch and the other people quoted were lying?
The funny part is, you blew your own case out of the water there with your admission that Murdoch owns right-wing outlets. So the internet, talk radio and cable TV aren't quite the first right-wing opportunity to get their opinions out, huh?
“I apologise”
ReplyDeletePlease don’t do that, for I’m unable to accept apologies from people who promote such an evil ideology. Who steal the fruits of my labour, who poison the minds of my children, who propagandise fear mongering and lies to the end of a one party totalitarian state, and who as every day passes, take another piece of my freedom and expand the horror of big government.
“for my failure to imagine the concept that the owners of a business would control its direction by appointing appropriate management is so foreign to you that you consider it a baseless assertion in need of proof. Sorry or not, I'm not going to provide proof the world is round, either. Work it out for yourself.”
You’re an intellectual coward Milt promoting fairy stories and lies that have been accepted so long because of your control of information, but in the new world of talk radio, cable TV and the internet, where people are at last free to question and challenge your propaganda, your deceit is exposed and it is clear the emperor has no clothes.
You can’t prove it because THERE IS NO PROOF and because your claim is at best a pathological superstition and at worst a cheap and worthless lie.
” somehow the design and manufacture of motor vehicles follows the direction of auto company owners, through their management.”
You sad stupid tiresome moron. Are you really so staggeringly simple that you think that the scenario you project, wherein every journalist employed by Murdoch is forced to use his intellect to write words and promote ideas he might totally disagree with can be compared with men who are paid to assemble cars in complete estrangement from politics or any kind of compromise to their self respect????
Thanks Milt, for showing once again how incredibly deficient in intelligence one has to be to believe in leftism.
”I tire of this.”
I’ll bet you do you lazy intellectual and moral coward. Run off like the baying jackal you are. Maybe you’ll think about it the next time you make the claim that Redbaiter has no argument or facts to back up his opinions.
Perhaps Milt's words could be packaged and sold as an emetic--every time I read him he has that effect on me.
ReplyDelete