Another "Impartial Journalist" Gets His Due.

[Prospero]

What are they going to do? Re-introduce the draft perhaps?

[Silcc69]

Catastrophe? According to Ryan, the Republican administration will create 12 million new jobs in its first term. Can't argue with that, now, can you?

Some backroom deal with multiple companies?

[thombergeron]

Add one to the unemployment ranks.


Add another to this list of lib low lifes who had to be disiplined for outrageous, slanderous behavior or statements....Roland Martin, Sgt. Shultz, Fareed Zakaria. Grahame Morris, Chris Matthews, Barbara Walters, Charles Blow, Dan Pfeiffer, Alexandra Petri, Joe Nocera, Dan Savage.....Starting to see a pattern here? Didn't they get the lecture on civility?

Pretty bizarre list of "lib journalists" who have been "disciplined," plainly born of desperation following Paul Ryan's wildly mendacious speech at the RNC.

I'm pretty sure you're the only person on the planet who thinks Roland Martin is a liberal, particularly because he was suspended for advocating violence against homosexuals, a position he claims was inspired by his deeply held Christian faith. Prior to tweeting about how much he enjoys smacking faggots, Martin engaged himself in the increasingly lonely activity of defending former RNC chairman Michael Steele.

Ed Schultz: Not a journalist. Certainly an asshole, but his entire schtick is to rip off Rush Limbaugh. Except that Limbaugh never walks back anything. So when you're a liberal blowhard with a radio program, you get suspended. When you're a conservative blowhard with a radio program, you get your contract extended. Each used literally the same word, but Schultz was the only one who suffered consequences.

Fareed Zakaria: Rightly suspended for plagiarism, not slander. Also, not very liberal.

Graham Morris: U.K. politician. Not a journalist. Apologized (of his own initiative) for referring to an Australian journalist as "a cow," but not actually "disciplined" by anybody for anything.

Chris Matthews has never been disciplined for anything. You just threw him in there because the truth fucking hurts.

Similarly, Barbara Walters has never been disciplined for anything. Also kind of weird to call her a liberal. Has she ever staked out any position on any issue? What on earth could someone as mundane as Barbara Walters do to get your panties in a bunch? Her entire career is based on being boring and inoffensive.

Charles Blow has never been disciplined for anything.

Dan Pfeiffer is also not a journalist at all. He's still holding the same job that he's held for the past three years, and has never been disciplined in any way for anything.

Continuing in the same vein, neither Alexandra Petri, Joe Nocera, nor Dan Savage have ever been disciplined for anything.

Thus, your list of "lib journalists" who have been "disciplined for outrageous, slanderous behavior or statements," in fact, contains zero "lib journalists" who have been "disciplined for outrageous, slanderous behavior or statements."

If the pattern to which you're referring is the one where you just make shit up, then yes, many of us noticed that some time ago.

[Ben]

Well Ben, you can write in Ron Paul if you want, but if my choice is between Obama and Romney..........
I don't know about you, but I got down on my knees and ate shit for years not because I was into that- I did it for the goddam money. I understood Obama before I ever knew who he was.
....now if you want to bet a grand on Ron Paul, let's talk turkey!!

I wanted Paul to win the nomination so that Americans could witness a real debate about foreign policy. I mean, there won't be a debate between Romney and Obama. Because they pretty much agree... with respect to foreign policy.

[Ben]

Catastrophe? According to Ryan, the Republican administration will create 12 million new jobs in its first term. Can't argue with that, now, can you?

That's antithetical to rational self interest.... I mean, if a CEO commits to nothing but creating jobs, well, she or he is out. (Are there any TG CEOs? Just a question.) A CEO has a responsibility to serve her or his shareholders. NOT WHAT ARE CALLED THE STAKEHOLDERS. You and I and others.
So, you get free trade treaties. Namely the free movement of capital and the free import of goods. Which harms Americans.
So, 12 million in 4 years. 3 million a year. Question is: where are those "jobs" going to be created. Vietnam? China? India? Cambodia? And, too, what kind of jobs? What pay? Benefits? So: what kind of wage-slavery conditions are we talking about -- ha ha ha!
And how would the Ryan (it'll be his gang, as it were) administration do this? Lowering taxes.... Most leading U.S. corporations pay no income taxes anyway -- or very little.
More free trade deals? How does unrestricted capital movement benefit America? Obama asked Steve Jobs about bringing back jobs from places like China. Jobs said that won't happen. Steve Jobs and his ilk (had) have no allegiance to America. It's called: self interest and corporate &/or fiduciary responsibility. Your function is to serve a corporation. And not a country. These are transnational corporations with absolutely no allegiance toward America. And they better not be. That'd be irrational. I'd be upset if a CEO were committed to creating jobs in America. That is not his/her function. He has a fiduciary responsibility. And that precludes a so-called love and concern for America or Americans. He better get that notion of caring about America out of his head. And fast.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...ICLE/301239999

Corporations aren't designed to create jobs. They're guided by maximizing money.
As Noam Chomsky pointed out: The driving force of modern industrial civilization is individual material gain. Which is accepted as legitimate. Even praiseworthy. On the grounds that private vices yield public benefits, as explicated by the likes of Bernard Mandeville.
However, as Chomsky said, it has been long understood that a society based on this principle will destroy itself -- in time. It can only persist in whatever suffering and injustice it entails. As long as it's possible to pretend that the destructive forces that human beings create are limited, that the world is an infinite resource and an infinite garbage can.
So, the point being: we regard the planet, the natural world, other species and other animals as secondary, of very little value. And the economy as primary, it has real value. And is all important. This thinking and behavior and motivation is a recipe for disaster.
But we've DECIDED that future generations have no value. Future generations: kids, grandkids, great-grandkids just do NOT have any value. They're meaningless. Like the fly you're about to swat.
Anyway, neither Party will tackle the huge and growing ecological problems we face because we're fixated on individual material gain. Which, again, is praised.