Comments on: The So-Called Liberal Media

By: Laurie

Laurie — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:19:00 +0000

Why won’t the liberal media ignore a candidate that doesn’t have standings in the polls? Why waste the money?

By: Michael Suede

Michael Suede — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 19:29:00 +0000

It all depends upon how you define neoconservatism.

“ If we define neoconservatism as being a position that favors foreign wars of aggression, massive bailouts, crony capitalism, and strict controls over various aspects of personal behavior (gun laws, economic regulations, consumer safety regulations that tell us what we may purchase or what activities we may engage in, etc.. ), it becomes clear that the “liberal” media is really nothing but a bunch of corporate whores.”

Hayek and Mises called them socialists in their day.

By: uncarvedblock123

uncarvedblock123 — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:03:00 +0000

I’m not sure I agree with the assertion that they are all neocons. There is no doubt that they equally oppose Dr. Paul because he is not a statist, but that hardly makes them all right wing. To paraphrase Hayek: they are just socialists from a different party. If Ron Paul believed in all the changes that you list AND thought the state was the only way to enforce such rights, the progressive media would be carrying him around on their shoulders. Similarly, if he believed in free market economics as well as private property AND believed that the state was the only way to enforce such things, conservatives would be lauding him. It’s the tail end of each argument that scares both progressives and conservatives alike.

By: Michael Suede

Michael Suede — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:06:00 +0000

Thanks for such an insightful response.

By: DuaneKangre

DuaneKangre — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:44:00 +0000

naive analysis