Public vs. Private

This is a forum for discussing philosophical theories of government and social structure. It is not a venue for partisan rants or plugging favored candidates.

Re: Public vs. Private

Postby ronjanec on February 3rd, 2017, 10:47 am 

d30,

You would have loved living in Russia back in "the good old days of the Soviet Union" when Pravda and all the other government news media sources all provided the same one sided message. Ideological political "division" and "polarization" was a thing of the past in the country(well, at least publicly) and almost everyone in the country at least appeared to accept the same one sided message.

The "division" and "polarization" caused by Conservative news outlets after 1987 was not "a terrible thing" as you implied in your recent post, it was a wonderful awakening for many people in our country, a triumph for free speech in our country, from the one sided ideological tyranny of nothing but liberal programming that many millions of us absolutely despise today.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4403
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby Serpent on February 3rd, 2017, 12:31 pm 

ronjanec » February 3rd, 2017, 9:47 am wrote:d30,

You would have loved living in Russia back in "the good old days of the Soviet Union" when Pravda and all the other government news media sources all provided the same one sided message. Ideological political "division" and "polarization" was a thing of the past in the country(well, at least publicly) and almost everyone in the country at least appeared to accept the same one sided message.

What did that one-sided presentation of "the message" replace?

*This ^^ is a question.*

How, by whom and about what had Russians been informed before the Soviet union?

*This ^^ is a question.*
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby Paul Anthony on February 3rd, 2017, 12:32 pm 

d30 » Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:57 pm wrote:
Paul Anthony » February 2nd, 2017, 7:00 pm wrote: (PA responding to Serpent:) Thank you. My point, which you so graciously demonstrated, is that believing the world will someday agree is absurd.


Gol darn, Paul, I don't understand how you're still saying that unless you didn't read this from my post (several posts above):



Ideologies will not be squelched by scientific evidence. In addition to that, not all "science" is exact. The writers of that fictional TV show, The West Wing gave Pres. Bartlett a great line: "God created economists to make astrologers look good."

Even in those areas where science should have the utmost of influence, we don't all agree on climate change.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby ronjanec on February 3rd, 2017, 12:38 pm 

*This ^^ is a question.* You tell me Serpent. :)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4403
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby Serpent on February 3rd, 2017, 2:03 pm 

ronjanec » February 3rd, 2017, 11:38 am wrote:*This ^^ is a question.* You tell me Serpent. :)

Not my job.
You have strong opinions on a topic, yet no information. Presumably, that is your preference; else you would find the requisite knowledge.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby ronjanec on February 3rd, 2017, 3:41 pm 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History ... journalism Ok, Serpent, I stand corrected in my implication that there was much higher journalism standards and practices in Russia creating severe division and polarization in their country before the Communists took over.

Now what does your nit picking of my comment here actually have to do with my somewhat tongue in cheek comment and point that I made previously that d30 would have probably also loved journalistic standards and practices during the Soviet Era, when there was only very biased one sided ideological reporting of the news by their state run news media effectively eliminating severe ideological division and polarization in their country, which was again very similar to what the reported news was like here also in our country, with the also very biased and one sided ideological reporting of the news by the liberal news media effectively eliminating severe ideological division and polarization in our country prior to 1987?
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4403
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby Serpent on February 3rd, 2017, 4:05 pm 

ronjanec » February 3rd, 2017, 2:41 pm wrote: Ok, Serpent, I stand corrected in my implication that there was much higher journalism standards and practices in Russia creating severe division and polarization in their country before the Communists took over.

Now what does your nit picking of my comment here actually have to do with my somewhat tongue in cheek comment and point that I made previously that d30.... etc

Somewhat tongue-in-cheek? Okay....
The relevance is that d30 usually knows what he's talking about: his posts are informed and well reasoned. Your comment was neither.
But you learned something, so it's all good.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby ronjanec on February 3rd, 2017, 4:23 pm 

Unfortunately, I must have fallen asleep during "everyone's" history of Russian journalism prior to the Soviet Union class Serpent. I will try to do better in the future if you are willing to give me another chance?
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4403
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby Serpent on February 3rd, 2017, 5:30 pm 

ronjanec » February 3rd, 2017, 3:23 pm wrote:Unfortunately, I must have fallen asleep during "everyone's" history of Russian journalism prior to the Soviet Union class Serpent. I will try to do better in the future if you are willing to give me another chance?

It's not up to to me.

The topic is private vs public works. What is the correct amount of power that a government needs to exercise over the economy in order to balance the requirements of the citizenry and the freedom of commerce? Which, if any, kinds of enterprise should government control fully, partially, by contract or in partnership with private concerns? What level of government should be responsible for regulating what industries and services?

If you have a contribution, I'm sure it will be welcomed.
If it leaves open questions of fact or vocabulary, I'm sure they will be asked.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby ronjanec on February 3rd, 2017, 5:42 pm 

Well, let's just hope that everyone is willing to give me another chance then Serpent.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4403
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby d30 on February 3rd, 2017, 7:21 pm 

Serpent » February 3rd, 2017, 5:12 am wrote:I mean, quite literally, that history and science have no voice of their own. People tell their stories. The stories, and how they are told, are always biased, always edited, always purposeful.
The founding fathers of America were aware of a portion of history that was meaningful to them and they interpreted in a way that served their purpose. They did some good, did some harm.
They were also intelligent men, and with a little good-will, of course they would have been able to conceive of democracy. Little children in the playground re-invent democracy every week.


What you're saying is, of course, true where it concerns still ignorant, unenlightened thus dishonest, subjective, bigoted people. But you seem to generalize that all humans are like that - condemn all humans when the fact is many humans today and past were not like that. Scientists, e.g., are trained to be the opposite, and many remain true to those principles - rationality, objectivity, proof, vetting, careful about what they say is real or fake.

You said history and science tell us nothing, but archeologists have scientifically established a lot about how many of our ancestors lived, verifying a lot of history. In addition, enough lessons of history became recognized out of just the endless repetition of them (of greed starting wars, etc.), endlessly replicated as in scientific experiment replication, validating those lessons. It was upon that growingly valid legacy that the U.S. Founders were able to conceive of democracy. Without it, they, like all, would still have been wallowing in the muck, preoccupied 24/7 year in and year out with where their next meal was coming from. No time for thinking about advancing.

As for science also "tell[s] us nothing," science, too, speaks to us loudly in everything around us in the world in which we live today. Much is based on electricity, e.g., where innovators like Edison were able to advance it only by building upon science developed by those who came before them, proving that that science was valid - it worked as described. The world today is proof of that science is always telling us a great deal, each generation advancing it more, and next generations building upon that, perpetually.

So, science tells us plenty, and keeps telling us more and more, and possibly one day enough knowledge and awareness (true, proved and valid) is attained that we finally end its opposite - bigotry, and folks like you can no longer contend that humans will always be arbitrary, selfish, dishonest, cruel, imperialistic, and "crazy."
d30
Member
 
Posts: 246
Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Location: San Diego area


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby d30 on February 3rd, 2017, 7:40 pm 

ronjanec » February 3rd, 2017, 6:47 am wrote:d30,

You would have loved living in Russia back in "the good old days of the Soviet Union" when Pravda and all the other government news media sources all provided the same one sided message. Ideological political "division" and "polarization" was a thing of the past in the country(well, at least publicly) and almost everyone in the country at least appeared to accept the same one sided message.

The "division" and "polarization" caused by Conservative news outlets after 1987 was not "a terrible thing" as you implied in your recent post, it was a wonderful awakening for many people in our country, a triumph for free speech in our country, from the one sided ideological tyranny of nothing but liberal programming that many millions of us absolutely despise today.


Somehow you have radically misinterpreted what I've said ronjanec. Did not say we need one-sided control of media and information by a Soviet-like propagandistic Pravda. I'm saying that if there can't yet be a reliable source of truthful information, then in the least, BOTH sides should be allowed on U.S. talk radio. Not 91% right-wing talk radio. THAT's what is close to what Soviet one-sided media were, and where America is in imminent danger of going.
d30
Member
 
Posts: 246
Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Location: San Diego area


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby Paul Anthony on February 3rd, 2017, 7:42 pm 

d30 » Fri Feb 03, 2017 4:21 pm wrote:

So, science tells us plenty, and keeps telling us more and more, and possibly one day enough knowledge and awareness (true, proved and valid) is attained that we finally end its opposite - bigotry, and folks like you can no longer contend that humans will always be arbitrary, selfish, dishonest, cruel, imperialistic, and "crazy."


You keep saying that as if you believe it. ;)

Science will not prevent wars. Science gave us the atom bomb and continues to provide more and more sophisticated tools for war.

That's not a condemnation of Science. Science is neutral. Morality has to come from some other source.
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby Braininvat on February 3rd, 2017, 8:11 pm 

d30 » February 3rd, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:
ronjanec » February 3rd, 2017, 6:47 am wrote:d30,

You would have loved living in Russia back in "the good old days of the Soviet Union" ....


Somehow you have radically misinterpreted what I've said ronjanec. Did not say we need one-sided control of media and information by a Soviet-like propagandistic Pravda. I'm saying that if there can't yet be a reliable source of truthful information, then in the least, BOTH sides should be allowed on U.S. talk radio. Not 91% right-wing talk radio. THAT's what is close to what Soviet one-sided media were, and where America is in imminent danger of going.


I've been meaning to point something out here, ever since this meme appeared about talk radio:

Both sides ARE allowed on the radio. There is a confusion here between consumer demographics and content provider. Radio is, except for talk programs that are on NPR and APR, predominantly conservative talk shows because that's who listens to radio now. People like me, with postgraduate degrees and white collar jobs, tend to go to the Net for content. We generally have wifi and smartphones and can access any sort of streaming content, music, podcasts, etc. I'm not even sure where my old radio is - in a box somewhere in the basement, most likely. If I do happen to be stuck in the car and have no Net access, there is a radio there, and I will probably tune it to the NPR station. Or maybe an oldies station that just has music. Or maybe a jazz and classical station...no, wait, all the jazz/classical is on the NPR station here. You see what I'm getting at? Radio, for large segments of the population, has become a rather antique technology that is only used when there are gaps in other newer content providing technologies. I used to listen to CarTalk on NPR, and I was stuck to a particular time. Then I discovered the podcast was available ANYTIME, so I could hear it whenever was convenient. Same for Prairie Home Companion or Fresh Air or Wait Wait Don't Tell Me.

Who is most forced to listen to radio because other content isn't accessible? Truckers? Construction workers? The elderly (from force of long habit?)? Those in remote rural areas? Those who cannot afford wifi or smartphone plans? My guess is that station managers try to pitch their talk radio segments to what they find, by survey methods, to be the preferences of their listener demographic. If you assume that the more liberal portion will gravitate to NPR stations, then who is left on the rest of the AM/FM dial?
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6693
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
Paul Anthony liked this post


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby wolfhnd on February 3rd, 2017, 8:16 pm 

Morality is abstract but humans have a built-in system of justice that we share with many social animals. It can be counter productive to violate the innate moral precepts. To some extent I subscribe to the idea "wonderful theory, wrong species".
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4645
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby Paul Anthony on February 3rd, 2017, 8:28 pm 

Braininvat,

You are right. The world has changed. I rarely turn on the radio in my car unless I'm on a long drive, and I choose music. At home, the receiver is on often because it provides surround sound for my TV. I really only listen to the radio at my favorite coffee shop, which has Sirius tuned to oldies music.

I only watch the local news on TV. Most of my news comes from the Internet. I occasionally watch a podcast, but really prefer to READ the news. I don't want someone talking to me, telling me what they think I should hear.

I haven't read a newspaper in at least 10 years, but read newspaper articles on line. I enjoy opinion pieces as entertainment, but for hard news I rely on AP, UPI and Reuters. All the other networks like CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC get most of their news from those sources. By going to the source, there is less bias.

But just as opinion pieces are entertaining, so are biased sources. So, I regularly read Heritage.com and National Memo.com. It's interesting to see how they cover the same events...differently. :)
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby wolfhnd on February 3rd, 2017, 9:06 pm 

When I was young I subscribed to a Neo Nazi and a communist rag. Occasionally the most bias sources can teach you something or open up an interesting story you can't get anywhere else. I agree however that for news you need to be accurate you have to dig pretty deep, find the original sources and have a bit of luck. I mostly get my news today from forums because the news junkies can be used as a sort of filter. You need to find news junkies from all the political ideologies to really piece together what is happening.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4645
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)
Lomax liked this post


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby Serpent on February 3rd, 2017, 10:44 pm 

d30 » February 3rd, 2017, 6:21 pm wrote:What you're saying is, of course, true where it concerns still ignorant, unenlightened thus dishonest, subjective, bigoted people. But you seem to generalize that all humans are like that - condemn all humans when the fact is many humans today and past were not like that.

Where is the condemnation in admitting that none of us knows everything? We are all products of our time, education and culture and we have unique points of view.

Scientists, e.g., are trained to be the opposite, and many remain true to those principles - rationality, objectivity, proof, vetting, careful about what they say is real or fake.

The opposite of what? Of course, a good scientist intend to do all that. But they remain human, finite and fallible. Each one only knows his or her own little corner of reality, and can only tell about it in the language(s) that they have learned. The people who, in turn, learn from them will each have a different perspective on the bits they learn.
Science, is not a person: as an integrated whole, it cannot speak to anyone directly. We learn through lenses and filters and interpreters.
You said history and science tell us nothing, but archeologists have scientifically established a lot about how many of our ancestors lived, verifying a lot of history.

Certainly, each archeologist and anthropologist and historian has told part of the story. The good ones have tried to tell as much of the truth as they could discover. But History, as integrated whole, cannot speak to anyone directly: we learn fragments of the story.

I said that Science and History have no voice of their own to speak to us. If you had a personal conversation with either one, I'd worry about you.

In addition, enough lessons of history became recognized out of just the endless repetition of them (of greed starting wars, etc.), endlessly replicated as in scientific experiment replication, validating those lessons.

I don't doubt it. I've certainly drawn conclusions - not very different from yours, by and large - from the bits and pieces of history I've read. But I would never pretend to know all of History.
I do not invalidate the lessons of history (Actually, Will and Ariel Durant's little volume by that title appended to their comprehensive work is a very good summary.)

It was upon that growingly valid legacy that the U.S. Founders were able to conceive of democracy. Without it, they, like all, would still have been wallowing in the muck, preoccupied 24/7 year in and year out with where their next meal was coming from. No time for thinking about advancing.

Be careful of elevating your national icons above many equally worthy candidates! A lot of knowledge had been accumulated in a lot of places before these men - mortal men, each with his own interest and agenda! - came upon this particular scene.

So, science tells us plenty, and keeps telling us more and more, and possibly one day enough knowledge and awareness (true, proved and valid) is attained that we finally end its opposite - bigotry, and folks like you can no longer contend that humans will always be arbitrary, selfish, dishonest, cruel, imperialistic, and "crazy."

I hope so.
btw, I didn't say humans were "always" any of those things. We have many other characteristics and we're each imbued with each trait to different degrees. I said we're too crazy: contradictory, conflicted, confused, manipulable, volatile, delusional, self-deceptive - as a species to overcome this next big challenge.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby d30 on February 4th, 2017, 1:03 am 

Braininvat » February 3rd, 2017, 4:11 pm wrote:I've been meaning to point something out here, ever since this meme appeared about talk radio:

Both sides ARE allowed on the radio. There is a confusion here between consumer demographics and content provider. Radio is, except for talk programs that are on NPR and APR, predominantly conservative talk shows because that's who listens to radio now. People like me, with postgraduate degrees and white collar jobs, tend to go to the Net for content.


This will all get to why Public-Private must be in balance.

PEW Research: "Listeners to talk radio ... tend to be, on average, more educated than the general population. About 75% have some college education, according to Arbitron." [http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2009/audio-intro/talk-radio/]

Granted, Braininvat, that quote from a Web page of PEW Research Center (non-partisan Washington, D.C."fact tank" - Wikipedia), is from ca. late 2008, but much of what you say about diverse media, Internet, eroding right-wing talk radio's influence, ostensibly true now, didn't emerge strongly until the mid- or late-2000s, the iPhone, e.g., not marketed until 2007 [Wikipedia].

But Rush Limbaugh pioneered the right-wing takeover of talk radio in 1989, meaning that for 18 years before the iPhone ignited great expansion in the number of info sources online leading to radio audience erosion, the Limbaugh's and Sean Hannity's dominating talk radio all that time, nearly two decades, had the political-listener audience to themselves - plenty of time to one-sidedly indoctrinate a sizable swath of the scores of millions of workday commuting American car radio listeners nationwide, day after day, year after year. It was clearly a significant stretch on the road to the polarizing radicalization of Republicans and their Party.

As for why talk radio went monopolistically right wing, one big reason, even if there are other reasons, is corporate bias, as in this quote of a Web article by Variety (the show biz daily): "Liberals blame the tilted playing field on consolidated radio ownership by vertically integrated groups like Clear Channel, which favor right-leaning views." (Clear Channel owns about 1,200 U.S. radio stations to boot, lending great publicly influential force to their bias.) [ http://variety.com/2014/voices/columns/how-conservatives-dominate-tvradio-talk-game-1201022387/ ]

Another important point is that it is not apples-to-apples to compare "liberal" NPR with AM talk radio. NPR talk shows, not even carried by all their local affiliates, occupy only a brief time slot here and there on the schedule, whereas AM talk radio stations are conveying one-sided right-wing content 24/7. Also, to identify NPR, or its TV sister PBS, as "liberal" has not been correct for decades since they had to lunge to the center when Republican Congresses started censoriously cutting their funding in the Newt Gingrich 1990s.

Radio, for large segments of the population, has become a rather antique technology.

Again, agreed, but not until about a decade ago, AM radio right-wingers having had 18 years before that to give only one side of the political, social, environmental, and economic state of America, falsely indoctrinating, polarizing, millions with one-sided slant.

Lest the larger issue, loss of balance and civil discourse in America, get lost in this discussion of radically biased talk radio, we need to remember other factors such as the virtual purchase of much of Congress, Senate, and state legislatures and governorships desperate for sizable campaign-cost contributions from dangerously superrich right wingers like the Koch brothers, a coeval development as bad or worse than one-sided radio, the two together, along with corporate media emptying of TV viewers intellects made possible by crippled education's failure to teach civics, ethics, etc., all currents in a "perfect storm" of national decline.

It all speaks to this discussion's rightful place in this thread: It was Reagan's abolition of the FCC Fairness Doctrine ca. 1987 that made one-side takeover of talk radio possible (no longer required to be balanced), amounting to a pernicious inroad by the Private Sector (commercial radio) on the "general welfare" Public Sector vital to a stable democracy, that private sector filling the people's minds with poisonous falsehoods and half-truths about the Public Sector.

Meanwhile, a Supreme Court now with four radical rightists made possible another, severe confiscation of power from the Public Sector by the Private, ruling in its "Citizens United" decision in 2010, and others, to remove most limits on superrich financing of election campaigns, making it possible for today''s insidiously superrich like the Kochs to increasingly fill national and state legislature seats with puppets they were able to buy because of the latter's need for funding to afford today's democracy-ruinous election campaign costs.

Add to the perfect storm the ascent of an impetuous billionaire corporatist to the White House, another severe blow to the indispensable Public Sector that kept America balanced thus stable circa 1933 to 2000, and we are in unprecedented danger, domestically and globally.
d30
Member
 
Posts: 246
Joined: 24 Feb 2014
Location: San Diego area


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby ronjanec on February 4th, 2017, 10:20 am 

d30,

I was thinking about this yesterday and trying to figure out by myself how AM talk radio became so dominated by my fellow conservatives, and I just put this down basically to market forces. I was not aware of what you are saying here, and I found your take on this really interesting, and also very informative.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4403
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby Serpent on February 4th, 2017, 10:42 am 

You all remember how Reagan "made America great again", yes?
(plagiarism sometimes runs in families)
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby ronjanec on February 4th, 2017, 10:54 am 

Serpent » Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:42 am wrote:You all remember how Reagan "made America great again", yes?
(plagiarism sometimes runs in families)


Serpent, what is the history of Yaks in Mongolia? :)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4403
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby Serpent on February 4th, 2017, 11:16 am 

ronjanec » February 4th, 2017, 9:54 am wrote:
Serpent » Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:42 am wrote:You all remember how Reagan "made America great again", yes?
(plagiarism sometimes runs in families)


Serpent, what is the history of Yaks in Mongolia? :)

Short and sad. Also off topic, unless the Ulan Bator has recently instituting an importation program.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby ronjanec on February 4th, 2017, 11:20 am 

Hey c'mon! I learned this from you. :)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4403
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby Serpent on February 4th, 2017, 11:31 am 

ronjanec » February 4th, 2017, 10:20 am wrote:Hey c'mon! I learned this from you. :)

Keep practicing. You'll soon get the hang of relevancy.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby ronjanec on February 4th, 2017, 11:57 am 

Serpent » Sat Feb 04, 2017 9:31 am wrote:
ronjanec » February 4th, 2017, 10:20 am wrote:Hey c'mon! I learned this from you. :)

Keep practicing. You'll soon get the hang of relevancy.


"You'll soon get the hang of relevancy"? And hopefully you also Serpent. And that is exactly what I was trying to explain to you yesterday in regards to your silly nit picking of my post and completely ignoring the main point I was trying to make there.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4403
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby Serpent on February 4th, 2017, 12:31 pm 

ronjanec » February 4th, 2017, 10:57 am wrote:"You'll soon get the hang of relevancy"? And hopefully you also Serpent. And that is exactly what I was trying to explain to you yesterday in regards to your silly nit picking of my post and completely ignoring the main point I was trying to make there.

You mean the one wherein you accused d30 of wanting to shut down news media and have only a single official source of information? And compared his idea of democratic socialist state to Stalinist Russia?
There, a question about Russia seemed not far out of place.
Yes, I generously overlooked your main point. It's a mistake I'm probably making now and will probably make again. The nit-picking was meant to point out that you lacked adequate grounds for that harsh comparison, especially as you have shown to be less informed on the subject than the person you criticized.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3057
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby ronjanec on February 4th, 2017, 12:51 pm 

d30's earlier post on this was somewhat confusing(or at least to me), and that was the reason for my harsh comparison in the first place(his most recent post on this made me understand him a lot better.

I still disagree with you about "the need and revelance" about your question to me about Russia, but let's just call it a day, and both of us move on from here Serpent.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4403
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby Paul Anthony on February 4th, 2017, 1:22 pm 

ronjanec » Sat Feb 04, 2017 9:51 am wrote:d30's earlier post on this was somewhat confusing(or at least to me), and that was the reason for my harsh comparison in the first place(his most recent post on this made me understand him a lot better.



Do you understand him?

He, like many frustrated Liberals, can't understand how anyone could fail to see the wisdom of Progressive ideology despite the fact that Liberalism dominates most college campuses. Knowing as he does how intelligent the Left's worldview is, he assumes the right could only misinform people through nefarious means.

But do not be offended if it seems he thinks anyone who disagrees with him is ignorant. He truly believes he is correct. :)
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Location: Gilbert, AZ


Re: Public vs. Private

Postby ronjanec on February 4th, 2017, 3:15 pm 

Yeah, l also got that Paul. But I guess I really should not throw stones here, because I also go on the same kind of rants about the liberal media. :) But I still found his version of the history of talk radio rather interesting and informative.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4403
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


PreviousNext

Return to Political Theory

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests