We just didn't realize that we had Eric, the magic bureaucrat to guide us
down the path of infinite fairness
Exactly, and that's what we've seen with 2 decades of neocons
running the government: there are absolutely no rules for some and
nothing but rules for others. In the media case we're discussing
here, mainstream outlets are bound by rules and regulations of
fairness and accuracy that the so-called 'conservative' press doesn't
adhere to.
Another instance of government involvement is that
many 'conservative' outlets are heavily bankrolled and subsidized by
phony tax-exempt front groups, while their competitors are dependent
Yes, and Liberals don't realize is that the monopolies almost
never
exist without government enforcement. The more powers the
goverment
has, the more powerful the monopolies it grants it's sponsored
monopolies have. Virtually every so called progressive action gets
enacted because it advantages the corporate masters in some way.
The
good of the people is the cover.
> Philip:
>
> Exactly right on--- what too many 'conservatives' don't
understand
> is that corporate monopolies are just as dangerous to liberty as
> government ones.
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Philip Berg <philzberg@>
> wrote:
>>
>> Under our present order the bureaucrat who decides is the
> investment
>> bankers who have bankrolled Murdoch with counterfeit fractional
>> reserve money for decades. The insiders got easy access to the
> easy
>> money. Murdoch was the ultimate media insider. A competitive free
>> market financial system may not have have helped to concetrate
> power
>> in so few hands.
>>
>>> Sooooo
>>>
>>> Eric, who is the magic bureaucrat who gets to decide what is
> fair,
>>> what exactly accountability means..?
>>>
>>> You..? Nobama....?
>>>
>>> Get a Grip...
>>>
>>> Marge:
>>>
>>> No one is suggesting censorship, but accountability is what is
>>> needed. Newscorp, for example, owns outright 40% of the media
(and
>>> has interests in others. It's not even an American-owned
company.
>>>
>>> Most of these media outlets are not providing information,
they're
>>> pushing propaganda and damaging people, industries, and causes
>>> without consequences.
>>>
>>> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "r. m. parkhurst"
>>> <rmparkhurst@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And doesn't the government subsidize public television? I don't
>>> think the government subsidizes any conservative radio or t.v.
And
>>> speaking of t.v. - most of the news stations (except Fox) are
>>> moderate or liberal. So between t.v. and radio, the American
> people
>>> have a choice of conservative, moderate and liberal shows to
> listen
>>> to or watch. If a person doesn't like the politics of one show,
>>> that is what the change the station or change the channel button
> is
>>> for. There is plenty of news out there from all sides. And that
is
>>> how it should be. Silencing conservative talk radio is
censorship
Yes, but conversely, how many times recently have we seen
corporations getting government handouts and protections and claiming
it's to uphold 'the free market?'
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "r. m. parkhurst"
<rmparkhurst@...> wrote:
I think that the main difference between corporate monopolies and
government monopolies is that the goverment sometimes finally makes
laws to put controls/restrictions on the corporations. However,
when was the last time that a goverment monopoly put controls on
itself to give itself less power and make itself noticeably
smaller? And whenever the government grows and adds to itself, it
always says it is for "the good of the people," or to "save us from
disaster."
Marge
From: Philip Berg
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Fwd: Cunningham Calls for Media
Summit
Yes, and Liberals don't realize is that the monopolies almost
never
exist without government enforcement. The more powers the
goverment
has, the more powerful the monopolies it grants it's sponsored
monopolies have. Virtually every so called progressive action
gets
enacted because it advantages the corporate masters in some way.
The
good of the people is the cover.
> Philip:
>
> Exactly right on--- what too many 'conservatives' don't
understand
> is that corporate monopolies are just as dangerous to liberty as
> government ones.
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Philip Berg <philzberg@>
> wrote:
>>
>> Under our present order the bureaucrat who decides is the
> investment
>> bankers who have bankrolled Murdoch with counterfeit fractional
>> reserve money for decades. The insiders got easy access to the
> easy
>> money. Murdoch was the ultimate media insider. A competitive
free
>> market financial system may not have have helped to concetrate
> power
>> in so few hands.
>>
>>> Sooooo
>>>
>>> Eric, who is the magic bureaucrat who gets to decide what is
> fair,
>>> what exactly accountability means..?
>>>
>>> You..? Nobama....?
>>>
>>> Get a Grip...
>>>
>>> Marge:
>>>
>>> No one is suggesting censorship, but accountability is what is
>>> needed. Newscorp, for example, owns outright 40% of the media
(and
>>> has interests in others. It's not even an American-owned
company.
>>>
>>> Most of these media outlets are not providing information,
they're
>>> pushing propaganda and damaging people, industries, and causes
>>> without consequences.
>>>
>>> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "r. m. parkhurst"
>>> <rmparkhurst@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And doesn't the government subsidize public television? I
don't
>>> think the government subsidizes any conservative radio or
t.v. And
>>> speaking of t.v. - most of the news stations (except Fox) are
>>> moderate or liberal. So between t.v. and radio, the American
> people
>>> have a choice of conservative, moderate and liberal shows to
> listen
>>> to or watch. If a person doesn't like the politics of one
show,
>>> that is what the change the station or change the channel
button
> is
>>> for. There is plenty of news out there from all sides. And
that is
>>> how it should be. Silencing conservative talk radio is
censorship
>>> and why would any libertarian want censorship?
>>>> Marge
>>>>
>>>> From: Glenn Rapp
>>>> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:18 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Fwd: Cunningham Calls for
Media
>>> Summit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am I mistaken or does the government not subsidize National
>>> Public Radio already...........
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Eric:
>>>>
>>>> It's the listening audience that these men attract which is
>>> really
>>>> pulling the strings, by buying the products that advertisers
>>> hawk
>>>> during the commercial breaks.
>>>>
>>>> If there were a shortage of RF spectrum that the government
was
>>>> preventing opposing viewpoints from having access to, you may
>>> have a
>>>> point. But this is not happening. There is no conservative
>>>> "monopoly" on talk radio. How could it ever be enforced?
>>>>
>>>> Exhibit A: "Air America" tried and spectacularly failed.
>>>>
>>>> -Derek
>>>>
>>>> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "ERIC"
<lincolnproducts@>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> --- Inlibertarianrepublicans@yahoogroups.com, "ERIC"
>>>>> <lincolnproducts@> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Faced with growing Congressional pressure for media
>>> accountability,
>>>>> right-wing media bigot Billy Cummingham, a self-
styled 'Great
>>>>> American', called Sunday for a convocation of what he called
>>>>> (seriously)'the Kings and Queens of talk radio'. Whatever
>>> else can be
>>>>> faulted to Cunningham, lack of self-esteem can't be one of
>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cunningham hopes to recruit such luminaries as Rush
Limbaugh,
>>> Sean
>>>>> Hannity, Mark Levine, and various other blowhards to discuss
>>>>> potential
>>>>> attacks on 'free speech'. That might make for an interesting
>>>>> spectacle:
>>>>> watching a dozen or so egomaniacs fighting over top billing,
>>> photo-
>>>>> ops,
>>>>> and jockeying for title of American Saviour. But
Cunningham's
>>> idea is
>>>>> a
>>>>> bit misplaced.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be much more interesting to have a summit of these
>>> guys'
>>>>> bosses: Roger Ailes, R.M. Scaife, Reverend Moon, Rupert
>>> Murdoch, Pat
>>>>> Robertson, Conrad Black---just to name a few. It would do
the
>>>>> American
>>>>> people a lot of good to see just who's pulling the strings
>>> and who's
>>>>> really carrying on 'free speech' in the monopoly media
market.
Yes and we all know that, to you neocons, 'fairness' is an obscene
concept. It happens though that our system is founded on the premise
of equality before the law and 'liberty and justice for all'.
We just didn't realize that we had Eric, the magic bureaucrat to
guide us
down the path of infinite fairness
> I think that the main difference between corporate monopolies
and
> government monopolies is that the goverment sometimes finally
makes laws to
> put controls/restrictions on the corporations. However, when
was the last
> time that a goverment monopoly put controls on itself to give
itself less
> power and make itself noticeably smaller? And whenever the
government
> grows and adds to itself, it always says it is for "the good of
the people,"
> or to "save us from disaster."
> Marge
>
>
> *From:* Philip Berg <philzberg@...>
> *To:* lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 14, 2009 1:53 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Fwd: Cunningham Calls for Media
Summit
>
> Yes, and Liberals don't realize is that the monopolies almost
never
> exist without government enforcement. The more powers the
goverment
> has, the more powerful the monopolies it grants it's sponsored
> monopolies have. Virtually every so called progressive action gets
> enacted because it advantages the corporate masters in some way.
The
> good of the people is the cover.
>
> > Philip:
> >
> > Exactly right on--- what too many 'conservatives' don't
understand
> > is that corporate monopolies are just as dangerous to liberty as
> > government ones.
> >
> > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%
40yahoogroups.com>,
> Philip Berg <philzberg@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Under our present order the bureaucrat who decides is the
> > investment
> >> bankers who have bankrolled Murdoch with counterfeit fractional
> >> reserve money for decades. The insiders got easy access to the
> > easy
> >> money. Murdoch was the ultimate media insider. A competitive
free
> >> market financial system may not have have helped to concetrate
> > power
> >> in so few hands.
> >>
> >>> Sooooo
> >>>
> >>> Eric, who is the magic bureaucrat who gets to decide what is
> > fair,
> >>> what exactly accountability means..?
> >>>
> >>> You..? Nobama....?
> >>>
> >>> Get a Grip...
> >>>
> >>> Marge:
> >>>
> >>> No one is suggesting censorship, but accountability is what is
> >>> needed. Newscorp, for example, owns outright 40% of the media
(and
> >>> has interests in others. It's not even an American-owned
company.
> >>>
> >>> Most of these media outlets are not providing information,
they're
> >>> pushing propaganda and damaging people, industries, and causes
> >>> without consequences.
> >>>
> >>> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%
40yahoogroups.com>,
> "r. m. parkhurst"
> >>> <rmparkhurst@> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> And doesn't the government subsidize public television? I
don't
> >>> think the government subsidizes any conservative radio or
t.v. And
> >>> speaking of t.v. - most of the news stations (except Fox) are
> >>> moderate or liberal. So between t.v. and radio, the American
> > people
> >>> have a choice of conservative, moderate and liberal shows to
> > listen
> >>> to or watch. If a person doesn't like the politics of one
show,
> >>> that is what the change the station or change the channel
button
> > is
> >>> for. There is plenty of news out there from all sides. And
that is
> >>> how it should be. Silencing conservative talk radio is
censorship
> >>> and why would any libertarian want censorship?
> >>>> Marge
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Glenn Rapp
> >>>> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%
40yahoogroups.com>
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:18 AM
> >>>> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Fwd: Cunningham Calls for
Media
> >>> Summit
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Am I mistaken or does the government not subsidize National
> >>> Public Radio already...........
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Eric:
> >>>>
> >>>> It's the listening audience that these men attract which is
> >>> really
> >>>> pulling the strings, by buying the products that advertisers
> >>> hawk
> >>>> during the commercial breaks.
> >>>>
> >>>> If there were a shortage of RF spectrum that the government
was
> >>>> preventing opposing viewpoints from having access to, you may
> >>> have a
> >>>> point. But this is not happening. There is no conservative
> >>>> "monopoly" on talk radio. How could it ever be enforced?
> >>>>
> >>>> Exhibit A: "Air America" tried and spectacularly failed.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Derek
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%
40yahoogroups.com>,
> "ERIC" <lincolnproducts@>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ---
Inlibertarianrepublicans@yahoogroups.com<Inlibertarianrepublicans%
40yahoogroups.com>,
> "ERIC"
> >>>>> <lincolnproducts@> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Faced with growing Congressional pressure for media
> >>> accountability,
> >>>>> right-wing media bigot Billy Cummingham, a self-
styled 'Great
> >>>>> American', called Sunday for a convocation of what he called
> >>>>> (seriously)'the Kings and Queens of talk radio'. Whatever
> >>> else can be
> >>>>> faulted to Cunningham, lack of self-esteem can't be one of
> >>> them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cunningham hopes to recruit such luminaries as Rush
Limbaugh,
> >>> Sean
> >>>>> Hannity, Mark Levine, and various other blowhards to discuss
> >>>>> potential
> >>>>> attacks on 'free speech'. That might make for an interesting
> >>>>> spectacle:
> >>>>> watching a dozen or so egomaniacs fighting over top billing,
> >>> photo-
> >>>>> ops,
> >>>>> and jockeying for title of American Saviour. But
Cunningham's
> >>> idea is
> >>>>> a
> >>>>> bit misplaced.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It would be much more interesting to have a summit of these
> >>> guys'
> >>>>> bosses: Roger Ailes, R.M. Scaife, Reverend Moon, Rupert
> >>> Murdoch, Pat
> >>>>> Robertson, Conrad Black---just to name a few. It would do
the
> >>>>> American
> >>>>> people a lot of good to see just who's pulling the strings
> >>> and who's
> >>>>> really carrying on 'free speech' in the monopoly media
market.
I believe in fairness. I think that big government is the most unfair enity we have because we are generally powerless to take ay of their power away. Now the Obama government is going to nationalize some of the banks (heard it on Chris Mathews Show this morning as well as from people on line and talk radio). Chris Mathews didn't seem to think it was a bad idea. The only media I hear complaining about this is some conservative talk show hosts. The liberal media doesn't seem to care. Eric, you seem to think that only conservative media is bad. Don't you see any bad things about the liberal media? I think they both have their bad points and so it is good that we have both and can listen to both and decide for ourselves.
Marge
They are already Nationalized them defacto. as discussed on Mises.org. If Obama is dermining executive pay, , the places are overrun with regulators, and the New york Times is dictating office decor, isn't that effectively Nationalization?They have been working as an instrument of the USG sinnce 1864, where their paper became thethe paper that the state forced everyone to use as money. I still think that properly handled the actual outright deJure Nationalization could be used as an opportunity to end fractional reserve banking, at least in the parts of the banking sector dealing with fiat paper. In time ,if permitted, gold bullion banks may emerge that could engage in market controlled fractional reserve banking.
I don't know about other banks or institutions, but as regards Bank of America, for the "Bail out" the government was given (or took) 6% of Bank of America stock in prefered shares. The government is now the largest stockholder of B of A stock. The next major stockholder owns 3.8% of the stock. Because my government is now the major stockholder, my government has dictated to B of A that they can only pay 1 cent per share dividend each quarter. Last year I got 64 cents per share per quarter. Nationalization of B of A certainly has not helped me nor my retirement income. So to call what the government did a "Bail out" is not quite true. It is more like a "buy out" and all we small stock holders are paying for it. I don't see Nationalization as an opportunity for me and I'm surprised that any Libertarian would find anything good about Nationalization of any banks.
Marge
don't forget the lizard people and the illuminati Eric.........they are in
cahoots with the neocons
I don't think that there is such a thing as the 'liberal media'.
That's a label hung on media outlets that don't kow-tow to the Far
Right. In fact, I don't even consider Fox, or most talk-radio to be
conservative or libertarian; rather, I think that they are right-wing
extremists who want to push us into fascism.
As far as the banks being nationalised, Bush & von Paulsen already
did that. They also nationalised other economic sectors, although
they left their corporate cronies in charge; basically what they did
was privatise the profits while socialising the losses.
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "r. m. parkhurst"
<rmparkhurst@...> wrote:
I believe in fairness. I think that big government is the most
unfair enity we have because we are generally powerless to take ay of
their power away. Now the Obama government is going to nationalize
some of the banks (heard it on Chris Mathews Show this morning as
well as from people on line and talk radio). Chris Mathews didn't
seem to think it was a bad idea. The only media I hear complaining
about this is some conservative talk show hosts. The liberal media
doesn't seem to care. Eric, you seem to think that only
conservative media is bad. Don't you see any bad things about the
liberal media? I think they both have their bad points and so it is
good that we have both and can listen to both and decide for
ourselves.
Marge
From: ERIC
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 12:18 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Fwd: Cunningham Calls for Media SummitYes and we all know that, to you neocons, 'fairness' is an
obscene
concept. It happens though that our system is founded on the
premise
of equality before the law and 'liberty and justice for all'.
>
> We just didn't realize that we had Eric, the magic bureaucrat
to
guide us
> down the path of infinite fairness
>
>
> > I think that the main difference between corporate monopolies
and
> > government monopolies is that the goverment sometimes finally
makes laws to
> > put controls/restrictions on the corporations. However, when
was the last
> > time that a goverment monopoly put controls on itself to give
itself less
> > power and make itself noticeably smaller? And whenever the
government
> > grows and adds to itself, it always says it is for "the good
of
the people,"
> > or to "save us from disaster."
> > Marge
> >
> >
> > *From:* Philip Berg <philzberg@>
> > *To:* lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > *Sent:* Saturday, February 14, 2009 1:53 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Fwd: Cunningham Calls for
Media
Summit
> >
> > Yes, and Liberals don't realize is that the monopolies almost
never
> > exist without government enforcement. The more powers the
goverment
> > has, the more powerful the monopolies it grants it's sponsored
> > monopolies have. Virtually every so called progressive action
gets
> > enacted because it advantages the corporate masters in some
way.
The
> > good of the people is the cover.
> >
> > > Philip:
> > >
> > > Exactly right on--- what too many 'conservatives' don't
understand
> > > is that corporate monopolies are just as dangerous to
liberty as
> > > government ones.
> > >
> > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%
40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Philip Berg <philzberg@>
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Under our present order the bureaucrat who decides is the
> > > investment
> > >> bankers who have bankrolled Murdoch with counterfeit
fractional
> > >> reserve money for decades. The insiders got easy access to
the
> > > easy
> > >> money. Murdoch was the ultimate media insider. A
competitive
free
> > >> market financial system may not have have helped to
concetrate
> > > power
> > >> in so few hands.
> > >>
> > >>> Sooooo
> > >>>
> > >>> Eric, who is the magic bureaucrat who gets to decide what
is
> > > fair,
> > >>> what exactly accountability means..?
> > >>>
> > >>> You..? Nobama....?
> > >>>
> > >>> Get a Grip...
> > >>>
> > >>> Marge:
> > >>>
> > >>> No one is suggesting censorship, but accountability is
what is
> > >>> needed. Newscorp, for example, owns outright 40% of the
media
(and
> > >>> has interests in others. It's not even an American-owned
company.
> > >>>
> > >>> Most of these media outlets are not providing
information,
they're
> > >>> pushing propaganda and damaging people, industries, and
causes
> > >>> without consequences.
> > >>>
> > >>> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%
40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "r. m. parkhurst"
> > >>> <rmparkhurst@> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> And doesn't the government subsidize public television?
I
don't
> > >>> think the government subsidizes any conservative radio or
t.v. And
> > >>> speaking of t.v. - most of the news stations (except Fox)
are
> > >>> moderate or liberal. So between t.v. and radio, the
American
> > > people
> > >>> have a choice of conservative, moderate and liberal shows
to
> > > listen
> > >>> to or watch. If a person doesn't like the politics of one
show,
> > >>> that is what the change the station or change the channel
button
> > > is
> > >>> for. There is plenty of news out there from all sides.
And
that is
> > >>> how it should be. Silencing conservative talk radio is
censorship
> > >>> and why would any libertarian want censorship?
> > >>>> Marge
> > >>>>
> > >>>> From: Glenn Rapp
> > >>>> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%
40yahoogroups.com>
> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:18 AM
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Fwd: Cunningham Calls
for
Media
> > >>> Summit
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Am I mistaken or does the government not subsidize
National
> > >>> Public Radio already...........
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Eric:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It's the listening audience that these men attract which
is
> > >>> really
> > >>>> pulling the strings, by buying the products that
advertisers
> > >>> hawk
> > >>>> during the commercial breaks.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If there were a shortage of RF spectrum that the
government
was
> > >>>> preventing opposing viewpoints from having access to,
you may
> > >>> have a
> > >>>> point. But this is not happening. There is no
conservative
> > >>>> "monopoly" on talk radio. How could it ever be enforced?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Exhibit A: "Air America" tried and spectacularly failed.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -Derek
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%
40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "ERIC" <lincolnproducts@>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> ---
Inlibertarianrepublicans@yahoogroups.com<Inlibertarianrepublicans%
40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "ERIC"
> > >>>>> <lincolnproducts@> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Faced with growing Congressional pressure for media
> > >>> accountability,
> > >>>>> right-wing media bigot Billy Cummingham, a self-
styled 'Great
> > >>>>> American', called Sunday for a convocation of what he
called
> > >>>>> (seriously)'the Kings and Queens of talk radio'.
Whatever
> > >>> else can be
> > >>>>> faulted to Cunningham, lack of self-esteem can't be one
of
> > >>> them.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Cunningham hopes to recruit such luminaries as Rush
Limbaugh,
> > >>> Sean
> > >>>>> Hannity, Mark Levine, and various other blowhards to
discuss
> > >>>>> potential
> > >>>>> attacks on 'free speech'. That might make for an
interesting
> > >>>>> spectacle:
> > >>>>> watching a dozen or so egomaniacs fighting over top
billing,
> > >>> photo-
> > >>>>> ops,
> > >>>>> and jockeying for title of American Saviour. But
Cunningham's
> > >>> idea is
> > >>>>> a
> > >>>>> bit misplaced.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It would be much more interesting to have a summit of
these
> > >>> guys'
> > >>>>> bosses: Roger Ailes, R.M. Scaife, Reverend Moon, Rupert
> > >>> Murdoch, Pat
> > >>>>> Robertson, Conrad Black---just to name a few. It would
do
the
> > >>>>> American
> > >>>>> people a lot of good to see just who's pulling the
strings
By limiting executive pay, Obama probably is taking the only course
open to him. I would have frozen the assets of these looters and held
it for collateral against the bailout money.
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Philip Berg <philzberg@...>
wrote:
They are already Nationalized them defacto. as discussed on
Mises.org.
If Obama is dermining executive pay, , the places are overrun with
regulators, and the New york Times is dictating office decor,
isn't
that effectively Nationalization?They have been working as an
instrument of the USG sinnce 1864, where their paper became thethe
paper that the state forced everyone to use as money. I still
think
that properly handled the actual outright deJure Nationalization
could
be used as an opportunity to end fractional reserve banking, at
least
in the parts of the banking sector dealing with fiat paper. In
time ,if permitted, gold bullion banks may emerge that could engage
in
market controlled fractional reserve banking.
> I believe in fairness. I think that big government is the most
> unfair enity we have because we are generally powerless to take
ay
> of their power away. Now the Obama government is going to
> nationalize some of the banks (heard it on Chris Mathews Show
this
> morning as well as from people on line and talk radio). Chris
> Mathews didn't seem to think it was a bad idea. The only media
I
> hear complaining about this is some conservative talk show
hosts.
> The liberal media doesn't seem to care. Eric, you seem to
think
> that only conservative media is bad. Don't you see any bad
things
> about the liberal media? I think they both have their bad
points
> and so it is good that we have both and can listen to both and
> decide for ourselves.
> Marge
> From: ERIC
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 12:18 PM
> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Fwd: Cunningham Calls for Media Summit
>
> Yes and we all know that, to you neocons, 'fairness' is an obscene
> concept. It happens though that our system is founded on the
premise
> of equality before the law and 'liberty and justice for all'.
>
> >
> > We just didn't realize that we had Eric, the magic bureaucrat to
> guide us
> > down the path of infinite fairness
> >
> >
> > > I think that the main difference between corporate monopolies
> and
> > > government monopolies is that the goverment sometimes finally
> makes laws to
> > > put controls/restrictions on the corporations. However, when
> was the last
> > > time that a goverment monopoly put controls on itself to give
> itself less
> > > power and make itself noticeably smaller? And whenever the
> government
> > > grows and adds to itself, it always says it is for "the good
of
> the people,"
> > > or to "save us from disaster."
> > > Marge
> > >
> > >
> > > *From:* Philip Berg <philzberg@>
> > > *To:* lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > > *Sent:* Saturday, February 14, 2009 1:53 PM
> > > *Subject:* Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Fwd: Cunningham Calls for
Media
> Summit
> > >
> > > Yes, and Liberals don't realize is that the monopolies almost
> never
> > > exist without government enforcement. The more powers the
> goverment
> > > has, the more powerful the monopolies it grants it's sponsored
> > > monopolies have. Virtually every so called progressive action
gets
> > > enacted because it advantages the corporate masters in some
way.
> The
> > > good of the people is the cover.
> > >
> > > > Philip:
> > > >
> > > > Exactly right on--- what too many 'conservatives' don't
> understand
> > > > is that corporate monopolies are just as dangerous to
liberty as
> > > > government ones.
> > > >
> > > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%
> 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > Philip Berg <philzberg@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Under our present order the bureaucrat who decides is the
> > > > investment
> > > >> bankers who have bankrolled Murdoch with counterfeit
fractional
> > > >> reserve money for decades. The insiders got easy access to
the
> > > > easy
> > > >> money. Murdoch was the ultimate media insider. A
competitive
> free
> > > >> market financial system may not have have helped to
concetrate
> > > > power
> > > >> in so few hands.
> > > >>
> > > >>> Sooooo
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Eric, who is the magic bureaucrat who gets to decide what
is
> > > > fair,
> > > >>> what exactly accountability means..?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> You..? Nobama....?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Get a Grip...
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Marge:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> No one is suggesting censorship, but accountability is
what is
> > > >>> needed. Newscorp, for example, owns outright 40% of the
media
> (and
> > > >>> has interests in others. It's not even an American-owned
> company.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Most of these media outlets are not providing information,
> they're
> > > >>> pushing propaganda and damaging people, industries, and
causes
> > > >>> without consequences.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%
> 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > "r. m. parkhurst"
> > > >>> <rmparkhurst@> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> And doesn't the government subsidize public television? I
> don't
> > > >>> think the government subsidizes any conservative radio or
> t.v. And
> > > >>> speaking of t.v. - most of the news stations (except Fox)
are
> > > >>> moderate or liberal. So between t.v. and radio, the
American
> > > > people
> > > >>> have a choice of conservative, moderate and liberal shows
to
> > > > listen
> > > >>> to or watch. If a person doesn't like the politics of one
> show,
> > > >>> that is what the change the station or change the channel
> button
> > > > is
> > > >>> for. There is plenty of news out there from all sides. And
> that is
> > > >>> how it should be. Silencing conservative talk radio is
> censorship
> > > >>> and why would any libertarian want censorship?
> > > >>>> Marge
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> From: Glenn Rapp
> > > >>>> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:18 AM
> > > >>>> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Fwd: Cunningham Calls for
> Media
> > > >>> Summit
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Am I mistaken or does the government not subsidize
National
> > > >>> Public Radio already...........
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Eric:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> It's the listening audience that these men attract which
is
> > > >>> really
> > > >>>> pulling the strings, by buying the products that
advertisers
> > > >>> hawk
> > > >>>> during the commercial breaks.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> If there were a shortage of RF spectrum that the
government
> was
> > > >>>> preventing opposing viewpoints from having access to,
you may
> > > >>> have a
> > > >>>> point. But this is not happening. There is no
conservative
> > > >>>> "monopoly" on talk radio. How could it ever be enforced?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Exhibit A: "Air America" tried and spectacularly failed.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> -Derek
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%
> 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > "ERIC" <lincolnproducts@>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> ---
> Inlibertarianrepublicans@yahoogroups.com<Inlibertarianrepublicans%
> 40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > "ERIC"
> > > >>>>> <lincolnproducts@> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Faced with growing Congressional pressure for media
> > > >>> accountability,
> > > >>>>> right-wing media bigot Billy Cummingham, a self-
> styled 'Great
> > > >>>>> American', called Sunday for a convocation of what he
called
> > > >>>>> (seriously)'the Kings and Queens of talk radio'.
Whatever
> > > >>> else can be
> > > >>>>> faulted to Cunningham, lack of self-esteem can't be one
of
> > > >>> them.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Cunningham hopes to recruit such luminaries as Rush
> Limbaugh,
> > > >>> Sean
> > > >>>>> Hannity, Mark Levine, and various other blowhards to
discuss
> > > >>>>> potential
> > > >>>>> attacks on 'free speech'. That might make for an
interesting
> > > >>>>> spectacle:
> > > >>>>> watching a dozen or so egomaniacs fighting over top
billing,
> > > >>> photo-
> > > >>>>> ops,
> > > >>>>> and jockeying for title of American Saviour. But
> Cunningham's
> > > >>> idea is
> > > >>>>> a
> > > >>>>> bit misplaced.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> It would be much more interesting to have a summit of
these
> > > >>> guys'
> > > >>>>> bosses: Roger Ailes, R.M. Scaife, Reverend Moon, Rupert
> > > >>> Murdoch, Pat
> > > >>>>> Robertson, Conrad Black---just to name a few. It would
do
> the
> > > >>>>> American
> > > >>>>> people a lot of good to see just who's pulling the
strings
I wouldn't know about lizard men and Illuminati---maybe you should
write Palin or Huckabee and see what they say...
don't forget the lizard people and the illuminati Eric.........they
are in
cahoots with the neocons
> Exactly, and that's what we've seen with 2 decades of neocons
> running the government: there are absolutely no rules for some and
> nothing but rules for others. In the media case we're discussing
> here, mainstream outlets are bound by rules and regulations of
> fairness and accuracy that the so-called 'conservative' press
doesn't
> adhere to.
>
> Another instance of government involvement is that
> many 'conservative' outlets are heavily bankrolled and subsidized
by
> phony tax-exempt front groups, while their competitors are
dependent
> on actual revenue.
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%
40yahoogroups.com>,
> Philip Berg <philzberg@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, and Liberals don't realize is that the monopolies almost
> never
> > exist without government enforcement. The more powers the
> goverment
> > has, the more powerful the monopolies it grants it's sponsored
> > monopolies have. Virtually every so called progressive action
gets
> > enacted because it advantages the corporate masters in some way.
> The
> > good of the people is the cover.
> >
> > > Philip:
> > >
> > > Exactly right on--- what too many 'conservatives' don't
> understand
> > > is that corporate monopolies are just as dangerous to liberty
as
> > > government ones.
> > >
> > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%
40yahoogroups.com>,
> Philip Berg <philzberg@>
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Under our present order the bureaucrat who decides is the
> > > investment
> > >> bankers who have bankrolled Murdoch with counterfeit
fractional
> > >> reserve money for decades. The insiders got easy access to
the
> > > easy
> > >> money. Murdoch was the ultimate media insider. A competitive
free
> > >> market financial system may not have have helped to
concetrate
> > > power
> > >> in so few hands.
> > >>
> > >>> Sooooo
> > >>>
> > >>> Eric, who is the magic bureaucrat who gets to decide what is
> > > fair,
> > >>> what exactly accountability means..?
> > >>>
> > >>> You..? Nobama....?
> > >>>
> > >>> Get a Grip...
> > >>>
> > >>> Marge:
> > >>>
> > >>> No one is suggesting censorship, but accountability is what
is
> > >>> needed. Newscorp, for example, owns outright 40% of the
media
> (and
> > >>> has interests in others. It's not even an American-owned
> company.
> > >>>
> > >>> Most of these media outlets are not providing information,
> they're
> > >>> pushing propaganda and damaging people, industries, and
causes
> > >>> without consequences.
> > >>>
> > >>> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%
40yahoogroups.com>,
> "r. m. parkhurst"
> > >>> <rmparkhurst@> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> And doesn't the government subsidize public television? I
don't
> > >>> think the government subsidizes any conservative radio or
t.v.
> And
> > >>> speaking of t.v. - most of the news stations (except Fox)
are
> > >>> moderate or liberal. So between t.v. and radio, the American
> > > people
> > >>> have a choice of conservative, moderate and liberal shows to
> > > listen
> > >>> to or watch. If a person doesn't like the politics of one
show,
> > >>> that is what the change the station or change the channel
button
> > > is
> > >>> for. There is plenty of news out there from all sides. And
that
> is
> > >>> how it should be. Silencing conservative talk radio is
> censorship
> > >>> and why would any libertarian want censorship?
> > >>>> Marge
> > >>>>
> > >>>> From: Glenn Rapp
> > >>>> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com <lpsf-discuss%
40yahoogroups.com>
> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:18 AM
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Fwd: Cunningham Calls for
Media
> > >>> Summit
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Am I mistaken or does the government not subsidize National
> > >>> Public Radio already...........
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Eric:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It's the listening audience that these men attract which is
> > >>> really
> > >>>> pulling the strings, by buying the products that
advertisers
> > >>> hawk
> > >>>> during the commercial breaks.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If there were a shortage of RF spectrum that the
government was
> > >>>> preventing opposing viewpoints from having access to, you
may
> > >>> have a
> > >>>> point. But this is not happening. There is no conservative
> > >>>> "monopoly" on talk radio. How could it ever be enforced?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Exhibit A: "Air America" tried and spectacularly failed.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -Derek
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com<lpsf-discuss%
40yahoogroups.com>,
> "ERIC" <lincolnproducts@>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> ---
Inlibertarianrepublicans@yahoogroups.com<Inlibertarianrepublicans%
40yahoogroups.com>,
> "ERIC"
> > >>>>> <lincolnproducts@> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Faced with growing Congressional pressure for media
> > >>> accountability,
> > >>>>> right-wing media bigot Billy Cummingham, a self-
styled 'Great
> > >>>>> American', called Sunday for a convocation of what he
called
> > >>>>> (seriously)'the Kings and Queens of talk radio'. Whatever
> > >>> else can be
> > >>>>> faulted to Cunningham, lack of self-esteem can't be one of
> > >>> them.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Cunningham hopes to recruit such luminaries as Rush
Limbaugh,
> > >>> Sean
> > >>>>> Hannity, Mark Levine, and various other blowhards to
discuss
> > >>>>> potential
> > >>>>> attacks on 'free speech'. That might make for an
interesting
> > >>>>> spectacle:
> > >>>>> watching a dozen or so egomaniacs fighting over top
billing,
> > >>> photo-
> > >>>>> ops,
> > >>>>> and jockeying for title of American Saviour. But
Cunningham's
> > >>> idea is
> > >>>>> a
> > >>>>> bit misplaced.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It would be much more interesting to have a summit of
these
> > >>> guys'
> > >>>>> bosses: Roger Ailes, R.M. Scaife, Reverend Moon, Rupert
> > >>> Murdoch, Pat
> > >>>>> Robertson, Conrad Black---just to name a few. It would do
the
> > >>>>> American
> > >>>>> people a lot of good to see just who's pulling the strings
> > >>> and who's
> > >>>>> really carrying on 'free speech' in the monopoly media
market.
You were not alone in being deceived by the promoters of bank