Does anybody else

[Makalakumu]

Interesting that the CEO of News Corp (owns Fox News) Rupert Murdoch, contributes to Hillary, Kerry, Specter, Ted Kennedy, Fritz Hollings and others, and is STILL called all kinds of nasty names by your end of the political spectrum....
Shoot, I think less of Fox news now, just seeing what kind of liberal dipsticks Murdoch has given money to, Chuck Schumer for Pete's sake...

Murdoch has an agenda, don't kid your self.

The left vs. right paradigm is pure ********.

Study some Hegel.

Thesis vs. Antithesis = Synthesis.

This is the only religion the elite worship.

The Middle - aka less regulation and more "big government" is the wet dream of the elite.

Are you human? If so, that means we need alot of the same damn things. Maybe take a look at what other primates do.

 

[Makalakumu]

why hasnt there been a challenge to Roe?

Eugenics.

Planned Parenthood started as a Eugenics program. Killing babies as the bottom of the genetic barrel has been very popular with the elite in the last century or so.

Social management.

Nearly all of the supreme court justices subscribe to a Galtonian philosophy of human nature.

 

[Gordon Nore]

Okee-dokee, here we go:

MSNBC, NBC-owned by General Electric-that same GE that supplies appliances, lightbulbs, powerplant turbines, and, oh yeah, brings good things to light like jet engines, nuclear reactors, and nuclear weapons. The same GE that ran the Hanford Reservation Facility for the U.S., making nuclear materials for weapons. The same GE that began releasing nuclear material from Hanford in 1949...just to see how far downwind it would go. The same GE that was run by MR. Jack Welch-Republican, and major contributor the Bush campaign......

CBS-Owned by VIACOM,

ABC-Owned by Disney

Fox News-Owned by NewsCorp (Rupert Murdoch)

CNN-Owned by Time Warner.

These 5 companies control 75% of the media's prime time viewing...

I'm late to this discussion, but there is another point to Elder's analysis which has gone un-noticed, or at least un-remarked upon: If one considers not just prime time television, but also radio, print and even the Internet, a vast proportion of the media we consume is owned by an ever smaller number of players. Be they liberal or conservative, that tells me that the message is being filtered, and the media are tilting in the direction of monopoly, which is bad for public discourse -- conservative or liberal.

We've had a similar issue building in Canada over the last twenty or so years where we appear to have all kinds of choice in media; whereas we actually have less. Among, say twenty, Canadian channels that I can access with basic in my market, I'd say most of them belong to about three companies, not counting public broadcasters.

 

[Empty Hands]

And no, I am not a fool, the far right wants RvW overturned because they want to end abortion, I know that.

Then we agree.

The Supreme Court is, as you pointed out, already "stacked"

why hasnt there been a challenge to Roe?

These things take time. An actual case has to be brought, with an actual involved plaintiff, and wend its way through the district and appellate courts. A political pressure group can't just file a case with the Supreme Court tomorrow. The involved groups have been case shopping, and will be bringing forth their challenges in the years to come. It will take years too, the appeals process is glacial. Unless your case is Bush v. Gore!

As it is, the Supreme Court has already upheld the Partial Birth Abortion ban by a 5-4 vote despite the absence of life/health clauses for the mother. The future is looking bright indeed for the far right!

 

[Empty Hands]

...the court's ruling in Roe, is, or should be, null and void.

Again, the groups that want Roe overturned are doing so because they are against abortion and want it banned, and Roe is standing in their way. Not because they are high minded legal scholars.

 

[Big Don]

Again, the groups that want Roe overturned are doing so because they are against abortion and want it banned, and Roe is standing in their way. Not because they are high minded legal scholars.

Does thinking abortion is abhorrent negate the fact that the court had no right, under the US Constitution to rule as they did, not unless the Earth really is flat for the flat earth people...

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Can someone explain to me who "the elite" are? I keep seeing that term used in various threads, but there has never been a proper definition. And unless we share a common terminology, the use of it is meaningless.

 

[elder999]

.........the fact that the court had no right, under the US Constitution to rule as they did, ...

Care to explain that-briefly?

 

[Big Don]

Care to explain that-briefly?

That the federal judiciary is not empowered to make law?
Sure. Article One, Section One of the US Constitution:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Dictionary.com definition of legislative:

1.having the function of making laws: a legislative body. 2.of or pertaining to the enactment of laws: legislative proceedings; legislative power.

That is pretty simple and unambiguous.

 

[elder999]

That the federal judiciary is not empowered to make law?
Sure. Article One, Section One of the US Constitution:

Dictionary.com definition of legislative:
That is pretty simple and unambiguous.

Well, that's all well and good, but, since they didn't make law, but negated existing law, i.e., made a ruling, it's also pretty clear that they didn't violate the Constitution, which is what you said they did-in fact, you said that they "had no right to rule as they did," which, Article Two, Section Two of the U.S. Constitution says they do.

So, you still haven't explained anything, briefly or otherwise.

come sail away, some sail away, come sail away with me!

 

[Sukerkin]

Thanks for that link, Elder - the last thing I expected when I started following this thread was to learn more about the workings of the judiciary in the States :tup:.

 

[Twin Fist]

getting a bit off track arent we gentlemen?

 

[elder999]

Interesting that the CEO of News Corp (owns Fox News) Rupert Murdoch, contributes to Hillary, Kerry, Specter, Ted Kennedy, Fritz Hollings and others, and is STILL called all kinds of nasty names by your end of the political spectrum....
Shoot, I think less of Fox news now, just seeing what kind of liberal dipsticks Murdoch has given money to, Chuck Schumer for Pete's sake...

Well, of course he does-it points out the Hegelian dichotomy(?) that Upnorthkyosa has been referencing quite subtly. He gives more to Republicans because they're more likely to be directly in line with his political desires and motives. He gives to the others that you mention because they also have power, and by giving to them, he ensures that they owe him something-if not a vote on dergulating certain aspects of the communications industry, or doing away with the regulation that keeps owners of television stations from owning newspapers in the same market, they at least owe him a listen if they want another donation. It also gives him the false appearance of impartiality.And, if one looks at what the other CEOs and owners of networks have given, one finds the same sort of thing-donations to both sides of the aisle, with the overwhelming majority to Republicans, and donations to strategic Democrats-usually those who sit on committees that could effect their interests, but often those, like Kerry, who might wind up being President.

In the case of NBC and GE, if one looks to the GE Political Action Committee (that's what it's called:GEPAC) one finds the same thing: 60-70% donated to Republican officers, candidates and causes, and the remainder to Democratic ones. I point this out because nearly 30% of Jeffrey Immelt's donations went to GEPAC.

 

[Makalakumu]

Can someone explain to me who "the elite" are? I keep seeing that term used in various threads, but there has never been a proper definition. And unless we share a common terminology, the use of it is meaningless.

Good question. I'll give you my best answer, but know this, "the elite" means different things to different people so I doubt we will ever complete agreement on exactly who "they" are.

When I refer to the Elite, I am referring specifically to the Old Guard, Old Money, WASP families like the Rockefellers, Carnagies, Morgans, Astors, etc. This is a very Amerocentric group, though. In a broader sense international banking families (and no, I am not referring to Jews) like the Rothchilds or many of the European Royal families can also be classified as Elite.

The thing to keep in mind is that these families have interests that transcend the normal things that have meaning to us. Politics, nationality, sovereignty, money, etc...all of this takes on a different meaning in the elite context. For example, in this thread, if was brought up that the "left" and "right" media both have the same bosses and they are the Elite.

This kind of pragmatic attitude towards politics has nothing to do with allegience to partisanship. It has everything to do with manipulation of society for a gain of some kind.

This is why I said it was important to study Hegel. These 19th century German philosophers had a huge influence on world events. In particular, they provided Elite families with a rationale and rule book for the manipulation of society for their own gain.

A good example is the Hegelian Dialectic. If you are powerful enough to precipitate the antithesis, you can propose a thesis, and control the synthesis. Political parties do exactly this in the hands of the elite. The right and the left make lots of noise, but the "middle" was the original goal the entire time. The sythesis of ideas was directed by the control of the thesis and antithesis.

 

[elder999]

A good example is the Hegelian Dialectic. If you are powerful enough to precipitate the antithesis, you can propose a thesis, and control the synthesis. Political parties do exactly this in the hands of the elite. The right and the left make lots of noise, but the "middle" was the original goal the entire time. The sythesis of ideas was directed by the control of the thesis and antithesis.

In the meantime, though, those of us standing outside of this "elite," only see, hear and side with the noise from the left, or the noise from the right, so for them, there is no perceived dialectic, but a dichotomy-albeit, one that is at least partly manufactured.In any case, the perception becomes that there is "A" and "not A", as in "pro-choice," and "pro-life," when, in fact, those behind the scenes-the elite that Upnorth speaks of-don't care about either "A" or "not A." They are completely devoted to "B" as an outcome, which can and will coexist with either "A" or "not A".

In the meantime, "A" and "not A" people are at each others throats, when they should consider that neither of them would necessarily benefit from "B".....but they don't even see "B" to begin considering it...

 

[Sukerkin]

A neat precis in the last two posts gentlemen, which points out the futility that is antagonistic debating of Left and Right.

We have too brief a span on this Earth to let ourselves be divided by such things; after all, those that determine the course of global events are not concerned in the slightest about our maunderings.

When we feel the political/religious bile begin to rise we should recall the words of a very wise playwright:

"Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.".

EDIT: Having just watched a documentary about the last time we allowed intolerance to rise to epic levels, it would seem the tears behind my eyes have enabled me to regain a certain perspective that recent work stresses had robbed me of .

 

[DustinJolley]

I'm back!!! Lol! Isn't interesting how Liberals always accuse Conservatives of being loud and obnoxious, when they have plenty of loud and obnoxious people on their own side? Such as: Randi Rhodes, Keith Olbermann, Rosie O'Donnell, Chris Matthews, Michael Moore, Alan Colmes, Marc Lamont Hill, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Julian Bond just to name a few.

 

[theletch1]

I'm back!!! Lol! Isn't interesting how Liberals always accuse Conservatives of being loud and obnoxious, when they have plenty of loud and obnoxious people on their own side? Such as: Randi Rhodes, Keith Olbermann, Rosie O'Donnell, Chris Matthews, Michael Moore, Alan Colmes, Marc Lamont Hill, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Julian Bond just to name a few.

You make an excellent point, DJ, and without realizing it drive home the point that the last several posters have put forth. While there appears to be a gaping chasm between the "right" and "left" they are but two sides of the same coin and that "coin" is in someone elses pocket.

 

[DustinJolley]

Could you elaborate on that? I don't quite understand what you mean by "two sides of the same coin."