The Glade 4.0

Keep going, man - you'll come to the clarification if you reread.



No, as I said, we're questioning that. We're asking, and folks, including you, are dodging.

Your "clarification" is an oxymoron, that creates a whole new set of parameters, no matter how many times I read it.



No, you said that you're questioning the assertion. The assertion that nobody, but you, is making.



If you can;t defend your own position - change it.
If you can't successfully attack the other guys position - make up one they didn't present.
Weak.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

You really don't understand what I mean? Really?

It's fairly obviously a regulated market, but... there is adequate competition and free reign to provide the necessary conditions for the motivators of these stories to be PROFIT.



Really, man? You really don't think I was asking this? Dude, please read the conversation before arguing - it'll save time.







Here's where I question what I, at least, believe is your assertion.

But then you kind of back it up:


But, hey, I wasn't sure, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Here I'm asking again:



Now I'm asking for further clarification on why peeps might think this:



Still asking, since people won't stop dodging:



And we're done. Surely, you're not going to maintain that I haven't posed the question....

Did you see the latest plant in the communication wing of the liberal machine (aka the news):

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36454.html

_________________

On a side note if the media is really just the mouthpiece of the current administration, pandering for interest free loans, then why didn't they support the Bush administration?

_________________

You answered your question about "non-free market" reasons when you asserted that government has influence over the media.
I believe I made my position crystal clear when I wrote:


Still, you attempt to narrow the boundaries of your questioning by getting to such a fine point that it is obvious that you'd like the whole discussion to revolve around one Facebook article. Sorry, that doesn't fly. You began this by stating flatly that "news is free market". When you were shown that that couldn't possibly be true, you want to keep pushing the boundaries of reason by trying to create a definition for a "regulated free market". Something that is influenced by government contracts and subsidies using taxpayer money backed by the enforcement power of the Federal Government is not a free market, it just isn't. If you want to try to call that a "regulated free market" just know that you're fooling no one but yourself.

I'm sure you're well aware that this whole issue isn't wrapped up neatly about whether or not the Facebook articles were written at the behest of the government, but you refuse admit it.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Vindi answer my question please.

_________________

Obviously, I didn't see your post until after I made my response to Arathain.


See, Hopwin that's called Reductio ad absurdum and is pointless to try to make stick. If you simply look at what people have said, you'd notice that it's the undue and unknowable influence these gov't programs and regulations cause that are creating the opposition.

As for the Bush correlation, while a valid supposition, and worthy of discussion, you'll notice that the "green initiative" contracts, the position on the Presidential Advisory Board and the eligibility waivers for TLGP all came to be after the Bush administration. It's my contention that the Republicans are seen as more hands-off and the Democrats are seen as more hands-on as far as over-all commercial meddling is concerned, and the current administration has shown itself to be very "hands-on". I believe that the more government involves itself in the business of business; the more influence they choose to wield, the more pandering there is.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

You mean actually discussing the point of the thread? Pardon me. Well, if every decision is colored by the involvement of Fed $, what is the motivation for the Facebook articles, in your opinion? How does this get them more Fed $, do you think?



You haven't showed me anything. Everyone knows it's not unregulated - I'm not saying it is, and I don't particularly care as I've shown in this thread. You're arguing against an argument I'm not making, that's not particularly relevant to what I'm discussing, or the thread. Have at it, but you're arguing with yourself.



So, then, I must ask one more time, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, what's the motivation for these articles?

No, I addressed your post specifically. If you believe you have been chosen to be the arbiter of the "point of the thread" enjoy your delusions; whatever you want to conflate have at it.



If I haven't "showed" you anything then prove "the news is free market", as you so eloquently put it.

As you've posted it, your argument is summed up in your original statement that the news is a free market, and, with subsequent revision, that the news is a "regulated free market". Then prove the news is a regulated free market. That would require you to either make up a new type of economic model or drop the whole "free market" veil and just call it a regulated market. I you are going to pretend that your argument is that the Government didn't force the news media to carry a Facebook article, that's just asinine.

Your choice.



I believe every decision is colored by the involvement of the government taxpayer $$ being handed out by the gov't.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

So GE didn't receive any Federal money for the jet turbines, diesel engines, etc from the Bush admin, also Westinghouse didn't lobby for nuclear power plant production under Bush?

Or is the argument that the Bush administration didn't mind the constant bad press and negativity?

_________________

Did they? Did they receive it? Do they now, do they get them? I do know that Obama's nuclear plant loan guarantees didn't happen during the Bush administration. I do know that GE stands to benefit immensely from Waxman-Markey, the cap-and-trade climate bill that G.E.'s Vice Chairman characterized as a bill that they were able to work closely with the authors on.
My beef isn't so much that the level of gov't shilling has gone up, it's that the profitability of shilling for the government exists at all, and people can say with a straight face that any of it is "free market". As the gov't becomes more involved in the corporate world, the corporate world has more reason to kowtow to the government. As I stated previously, I believe that the opportunities were not as numerous and the gov't involvement not as intense during the previous administration; so the up side wasn't as profitable and the pandering wouldn't be as obvious.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I can't dispute the assertion that the line separating the public and private sectors is fading.

_________________

Does anyone here know who the most conservative President of the Twentieth Century was?

_________________

HMMMM Hoover? Just guessing. Well then again I don't think he rally helped the US recover after the depression.

_________________
"None is more important, none more legitimate, than that of rendering the people safe as they are the
ultimate guardians of their own liberty."- Thomas Jefferson

"Yeah, I'm rehearsing my poker face. I don't handle stupid well. *sigh*" - Farsky

I'd bet it was Eisenhower.

_________________

We have a winner. So, now for an exercise, because I'm feeling particularly ornery today.

What major differences do you see in the messages that Eisenhower and his Administration delivered to the public and those of every President after?

_________________

To be honest I know next to nothing about his administration except for the following:
a theme of loathing/contempt for bureaucy
deep-seated mistrust of lobbying efforts of private companies/individuals
less spending, especially in the military/national defense budget (military-industrial complex)

_________________

Hopwin:

Eisenhower's presidency actually balanced the budget and ran real surpluses in its last two years. The message from Eisenhower and his Administration focused on the Decade of Austerity, which, incidentally, was the real end to the Great Depression. The Rooseveltian Apologists tend to forget that as soon as World War II was over, the United States fell bellow even 1929-1930 growth and employment numbers. In any case, Washington was telling people to save money, work hard, be fiscally responsible and live within their means. And Washington set the example with its own Administrative Efforts. The United States prospered for it, especially since with lowered taxes and lowered spending, Eisenhower managed to pay off 90% of the U.S. WWII war-debt before he left office.

Today, and it's been this way since Lyndon Johnson at the very least, the Government sets a horrible example for its citizens. Between the every ballooning growth of entitle programs and the expansive rights doctrine of our courts and legislators, America really has come to believe that it's not responsible for its own behavior; that there are no consequences to spending money you don't have; living on debt; and owning things you quite honestly don't need and have no business getting. This is reflected in the savings rate and investment portfolios; it reflects itself in housing and car purchases; wages and education. For 40 years, our government has been telling people they're entitled to the consequences of the 1950s: your entitled to the rewards of hard work, fiscal austerity, and loyalty without actually having to pony up the sacrifice. And now that train has long since run away from the station with us in tow.

So, when I mention that the problem with the Media is something government caused, it's because most everything wrong with the U.S. is something the government caused. And I don't even have to get into the disturbing memos on message control and information flow coming out of Obama's Office. At least, I shouldn't have to remind you guys of all those wonderful statements from his press secretaries and PR people. You know, the ones where they're bantering about keeping things out of the media and away from public scrutiny that have nothing to do with National Security? You know, the total failure of transparency and accountability in his Administration? As insidious as all of that is, what really marks the failure and horror of this administration in regard to information is Obama's willingness to lie or distort reality because the change he wants is something people need to feel entitled to.

_________________

I was gonna say Wilson.

Edit: I guess Roosevelt would have been a better choice to take a jab at you.

_________________
The Dude abides.

Nah. But the man did invent the Vacuum though. So there's that.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Our government is a reflection of it's constituents, not the other way around.

The cause is us.

Government is never a reflection of its constituents: it is the manifestation of its own will to power. An empire without frontiers always turns in on itself.

_________________

Still dodging? I asked you two questions, neither of which you answered.



Why would I do this, when I haven't made that argument, as I have clarified in several ways in several posts.



Nope, try again. I further clarified since you were still making a stink over something painfully obvious. Again, please read the responses if you are going to take the time to argue. You'll waste less time.




And we're back into the circle:

Then we disagree. There are some governments that have been as you state. I do not think the US is one of them.