Bush supporters are still making (up) their own reality. Amazing.
On top of that, even if you take the Prince as a valid moral guide, using it in this context is…ironic, at best.
It misses one of the most important lessons the book intends to teach* - that while being feared is better than loved (as it is easier to maintain), being hated should be avoided at all costs - hatred motivates people to act against you, even in the face of fear.
- It has been argued that The Prince is a satire, and Machiavelli wasn’t truly trying to teach the lessons outlined in the book. This post assumes it’s not a satire, though I take no actual stand on the issue.
They funny thing here is if we take out the part about shaking Chavez’s hand and accepting a book (it’s ironic to me that Chavez was attempting to upstage Obama on the world stage both to make Obama look bad and because I think Obama is actually more popular in Venezuela than Chavez is…and Chavez took some heat for calling Obama an idiot or something like that when he took office), the rest seems very familiar for some reason…
Nope…I can’t place it. Let me think…‘Holy fuckin’ fuckin’ fuckin’ hell! And an OH MY GOD TOO! IMPEACH!! IMPEACH!! BLAH! BLAH! BLAH! GIBBER! GIBBER! GIBBER! FROTH! FROTH! FROTH!’…it’s on the tip of my tongue but just can’t seem to remember where I’ve heard this kind of thing from before…
Well, it will come to me eventually, no doubt…
-XT
When you consistently pose foolish and simplistic tu quoques like this, and constantly revert to a knee-jerk mindless conservative position on each and every issue, I doubt it will ever come to you.
Mindless…like this no doubt ‘HE SHOOK HUGO CHEVEZ’S HAND!! AND ACCEPTED A BOOK!! THAT HE’S ACTUALLY GOING TO READ!!! Holy fuckin’ fuckin’ fuckin’ hell! And an OH MY GOD TOO! IMPEACH!! IMPEACH!! BLAH! BLAH! BLAH! GIBBER! GIBBER! GIBBER! FROTH! FROTH! FROTH!’
I guess I should have put in some additional FROTH! and GIBBER! statements, as well as a ‘Holy fuckin’ fuckin’ fuckin’ hell!’(s) to be less mindless…no doubt.
Thanks for the input there Hentor. A pleasure, as always.
-XT
I suppose if you think Fox actually presents the news, the world IS a vast left wing conspiracy.
Never watch Fox myself, unless I’m over at my folks and my dad has it on in the background. I’m more of a BBC fan…though actually, I generally get my news from the internet as I have better things to do than watch TV news, regardless of how good it is (or isn’t).
-XT
I really hope that this is an attempt to provide a parody of the folks who wander about bemoning the imaginary “liberal media” and not a serious suggestion.
I’d like to keep the First Amendment we currently have, thank you.
I’m not a Bush supporter. I think Bush was probably the worst president in recent American history.
Addendum: Even though I still spout worthless claptrap in defense of his invasion of Iraq, which was not only justified but actually altruistic in nature.
:::talk to The Hand:::
It depends on how you define the First Amendment. When is it free speech and when is it propaganda? Where do you draw the line?
Oh, it’s a serious suggestion. You don’t think Fox is an adjunct of the Republican Party? Do you need proof?
I’m not defending his invasion of Iraq. I think it was ill conceived, ill planned, and ill run. But I’m not going to go around saying the US is evil.
I am not going to say the German people are evil but I will say what they started doing in the late 1930’s was evil.
Likewise, I say the invasion of Iraq, the torture, the abridgement of civil rights, are evil. Whether America is evil or not is a metaphysical question which could be argued but what America has been doing is evil. And I would say “evil is as evil does”. Just as “good is as good does”.
tomndebb, I assert that the First Amendment is intended to prevent political control of the press.
I disagree wholeheartedly. It’s intended to prevent GOVERNMENT control of [all] the Press. The existence of Fox News and CNN, with BBC and al-Jazeera available, all alongside each other mostly proves that it’s working.
And to be as blunt as I can, I say that if I hear somebody, especially a foreigner, criticizing the United States, I’m going to speak up in its defense. I don’t care what it did…I’m not going to let a foreigner criticize my country. If we have bad policies, it’s up to us to fix them, and it’s none of the rest of the world’s business.
Sometimes we need someone telling us we done fucked up, because we sure won’t listen to ourselves.
And yes, it is the world’s business when our bad policies lead us to invade countries without sufficient proof, or otherwise lead us to extend our power outside our borders.
Considering that one of those bad policies involved invading another part of the “rest of the world,” I don’t see how we can pretend it’s solely a domestic matter.
I draw no line. Propaganda is that opinion that is distributed, (or propagated), to express one’s views, generally with the intent to persuade others to share those views. In the eyes of the Constitution, it is all equal.
This statement is in direct opposition to:
Whatever word you propose to use, the effect would be censorship.
Why should Mr. Murdoch be penalized for publishng what he chooses?
So you want the government to be in charge of deciding which opinions will be recognized? Do you plan to give every party of ten people or so a separate broadcast license? Or do you intend to set limits, controlled by the government, on which parties are allowed to have such licenses? To the extent that some of this already occurs, it is an unfortunate compromise between available broadcast channels and demand to use them, but I am not at all keen to see the government formally take such a position. If the Democrats, (Socialists, Libertarians, PETA, Teabaggers, whoever), need more airtime, let them buy or create their own network. Keep government control as far away as possible.