Sure, small government - but in a democracy, you can't reduce the population. Therefore there needs to be good mechanisms in place to protect the democratic institution. Just like doctors and other professionals are wooed by suppliers, organizations etc - politicians are wooed and sometimes financed by corporations or other special interests. It is especially apparent in USA where the election spending is really "big business", but also evident in most democracies today. The Georgia-Russia conflict, no doubt had a lot of commercial interests as well - along with other geopolitical strategic considerations. It was not "democracies" that wanted to go to war with each other, that is for sure. There is a lot to gain from ridding ourselves with the current flawed parts which are so open to corruption and undemocratic influence/sabotage.
Uhh, yeah, the founding fathers did that already, it was over in less than a century, big business and even bigger money took it over.
For those interested - the "Hacking Democracy" documentary is also on Google video - 82 mins. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4463776866669054201 About the documentary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacking_Democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Box_Voting It is really an eye-opener to the flaws in election security of USA, if you have not seen it before, but it serves as a warning for absolutely everyone concerned about democratic and voting security.
A for instance. NBC reports that Dennis Kucinich is calling for the impeachment of Bush because he believes 911 was his conspiracy. Now is NBC liberal for having merely reported it w/o taking a side one way or the other? It had to be reported because its Kucinich ...its news. Now FOX would like to have seen the story quashed and never let it see the light of day. You know thats how they'd respond. That ain't liberal, its journalism. Substitute what you like in the Kucinich story but thats the scenario that fosters this liberal media idea. The right just wants to slide anything distasteful they do under the rug even when the truth of it is anchored in bedrock.
Well, there is no doubt that other networks like CNN has followed suit and adopted some of the tactics explored by FOX News and which proved successful for FOX. When it comes to the economy, it's almost always "upbeat reports" from the market snapshot commentators. The connotations used are those of a positive outlook whenever a glimmer of an upturn is spotted, and emphasizing the negative for others. An example of this are the reports on EURUSD, as well on oil and the indices. This is somewhat a "national bias", which one can expect to a certain degree. I see the same on Deutsche Welle, BBC and other news outlets. However, in politics - and especially foreign policy - I think this has been very damaging for world stability and opinion forming against USA. I expect this to change if Obama wins the election, but I think he is more of an underdog now - and the Georgia conflict was just a hint of this. The perception of enemies and fear which must be conquered is very strong, and I do think the last presidency has been very successful in further entrenching the US against the world. The successful change of other countries, while the US now suffers, is something that resonates upon this fear - and instead of reaching out to develop better relations, there is a sense of call to battle where enemies are creeping up on the values, existence and security of USA. I don't see this changing significantly - even though Bill Clinton delivered an inspired speech. The threat scenario burned on the minds of the US population is not going to go away, and they will choose "better safe, than sorry", although they are tired of war and economic hardship. That is the conservative mindset, and the dream of USA continuing to dominate world economy and the direction of world progress ... and I don't think the population of USA is at all inclined to adapt to any world change, because they haven't had to do so this far. Joe Biden's acceptance speech is truly terrible in comparison to the others - although it's not him running for president. He may be a good family father, but he has a terrible political message with regards to foreign relations. Maybe that works well in this political climate of USA ... unfortunately.
That is assinine. Fox would not blink at reporting Kucinich's call to impeach Bush because Kucinich felt Bush planned and executed 9/11. Fox would only be too happy to air such moonbat accusations. You're trying to take a long walk off a short pier.
wtf? No one wants to comment on the profound fact that a mere 5 corporations own, either directly or through subsidiaries, all print, television, cable and radio media in the United States? Follow the money.
Yes it's all in the hands (hidden hands actually) of a small group of the elite. It's not possible to follow the money all the way, as it's unlikely that it stops at the coorporations.
hapaboy, I agree. FOX would gladly show off any crazy conspiracy theorist - because that paints all arguments about anyone/corporations trying to influence news media as stark raving bonkers madmen. By the way here is Rupert Murdoch saying that he uses his influence to support Bush views and politics, and also admitting that public opinion has backfired somewhat on his efforts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF9HpuZm6-g