Jump to content



  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic



    Careful, Icarus

  • Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,135 posts



Is this even about Syria anymore?  Cause it doesn't seem like it.  And at least in the recent liberal media I don't see a large correlation with it and war hawks.  War Hawks come in many colors.  And most of the military "missions" in the past say 25 to 30 years have been began by conservative republican administrations.



    Old hand

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 629 posts


What I worry about is that there are now (thanks to the liberal media) some strident war hawks in Trumps administration

Our "liberal media" hasn't existed since Ronald Reagan, and even if it did, how is it responsible for war hawks in Trump's administration?



No matter what you think of people like Bannon or Gen Flynn and others that initially came in with Trump , one thing they all seemed to be in agreement on was that the US was overinvolved in the Mid East and should get out , these people were hounded by the liberal media and now what you see is them having been replaced by people who are even more on the right and are pro war in the Mid east. People like Bolton who if he had his way would start a war with Iran as soon as possible. This is the same media that ran constant negative stories on Trump and then when he did those initial strikes on Syria a few months back called him Presidential (for a time) and then went back to bashing him once that had passed and they did that without questioning anything. ABC News/CNN/MSNBC and others were all doing it and all I could think was "what the hell is going on here".


Maybe its the din of bread and circuses that has become the news cycle to keep you distracted , but I don't understand how it is that people can't see that this is happening.



    Old hand

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 939 posts
I've yet to hear anyone refer to Trump as presidential, I mean other than his own propaganda network (Fox). IMO what was "going on" with ABC/CNN/MSNBC during that brief period was likely a happy AIPAC and nothing else. Nothing earns brownie points with them more than dead Arabs, and Trump slaughtered 58 innocent people in his "show of force".
I really wish America would or could get over the obsolete model of our media being divided into left-wing liberal sources and right-wing conservative sources. E.g. the known collusion between Karl Rove and your specific list of "liberal" news organizations:
Please note the dates and attendee lists of these "summits", and then claim the "Showdown with Saddam", "Countdown to Iraq" etc etc which began immediately after on ABC, MSNBC etc every evening for months on end were products of a left-wing liberal media. It simply ain't so anymore and it hasn't been since 1980 or shortly thereafter. I was living in the middle of it at the time.
We were given a year and a half of nightly, hours-long "news" coverage of whether Bill Clinton lied about a BJ from Monica Lewinsky, and not a single second of coverage of GWB's over 200 (including his administration, see: http://permanent.acc..._record_rep.pdf) established lies and half-truths about Iraq, and intentionally misleading our entire country into war under false pretenses. Thousands dead, more thousands wounded, not billions but trillions of dollars flushed down the toilet, and unworthy of a single mention in our evil, liberal media.

The simple reality is that our former and properly liberal (i.e. journalism is a liberal art etc) major media hasn't existed since the late 1970's in our country. It was a casualty of Reagan, or more accurately, the media machine behind both Reagan and Nixon. It's the same group of people who successfully turned the word liberalism into an epithet in our country, to refer to big government, tax-and-spend socialism. This is very close to the precise opposite of the word's actual meaning, or at least how its defined clear around the world except in our country. But all of a sudden any American who defended any of our social programs was branded a raging tax-and-spend "liberal" (i.e. socialist). Reagan spent a good chunk of his time trying to destroy Social Security, it was one of the few political battles he lost during his terms in office. In case anyone doesn't remember, he lobbied heavily for no annual COLAs at all for SS benefits, which would have definitely relegated the program to practical pointlessness. It's been a relentless attack by the Republican Party on America's poor and on true liberalism in our country ever since. Virtually nothing remains of it, even going back to the 1970's and 80's America was suddenly presented with e.g. Eleanor Clift as "The Left", so now our two choices in broadcast political discussions are pro-Israel and rabidly pro-Israel. Pro multinational and even more pro multinational. Etc. The true liberal takes on these issues, e.g. theocracy is stupid regardless of which religion is involved, 320 million people with recognized rights cannot fairly compete with 1.5 billion people who have no recognized rights, etc etc, simply vanished from our national political dialog and hasn't been seen since. In my view it's precisely how we got where we are today. BTW congrats to Tom Lehrer on making it to 90, when he goes so does one of the last actual living American liberals imo. The philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with throwing rich people's money at poor people OR taking poor people's money to give to rich people.

Im case anyone missed it and cares, Rex Tillerson gave some imo very sage advice during his commencement speech at Virginia Military Institute last Wednesday:

"As I reflect upon the state of our American democracy, I observe a growing crisis in ethics and integrity," he said at the VMI commencement ceremony. "If our leaders seek to conceal the truth, or we as people become accepting of alternative realities that are no longer grounded in facts, then we as American citizens are on a pathway to relinquishing our freedom."

This same person was Trump's Secretary of State just two months ago, so not a lot of guesswork is required. :smile: Even more remarkable imo are where and to whom the comments were addressed. IMO it was a clear heads-up to our military that they're facing a very difficult choice. Also it would have been more helpful if he hadn't spoken of loss of freedom as a possible eventuality. We're already there. With this intentional and orchestrated FCC treason it's now and officially forcible repression of rights by this same government, not a potential or voluntary relinquishing of rights by the people. That's the difference. Absolutely nothing in our Constitution requires the American people to beg anyone for their constitutional rights to be restored, because our government does not issue or provide these rights in the first place. All the federal (or any) government can do is repress and attempt to repress recognition of these rights, and when involuntary repression occurs our sole responsibility is to remove and/or replace the repression. Immediately and by any means necessary. The people are not obligated according to our Constitution to wait for any legislative, judicial or even electoral process to restore recognition of our inherent, God-given and now forcibly repressed rights. Period. I and 320 million other free Americans would be more than happy to explain the above to any judge or jury in our country, but we'd be telling them what they already know. Our armed services know it better than anyone.

Edited by TheMastersSon, 26 May 2018 - 06:15 PM.

Page loaded in: 0.670 seconds