Leftist BBC gives air time to man who raped his 8 year old daughters

[Mike]

Posted by ceetee9 (here)

Posted by Mike (here)
... exclusively above the shoulders FOX news type vomit that we already get plenty of on the radio and the tv and the net...

Damn Mike, you had me all the way until you injected that statement. It appears even you can't get passed the right/left thing as well. Maybe we ALL better review our "beliefs/values" systems from whence we came.

Hey ceetee youve got a good point there!

I'm glad you pointed it out. I'm not above the fray. Im just as triggerable as anyone else. I took the bait of the OP.

But in all honesty, I dont necessarily loathe Fox news because theyre conservative, I loathe them because I feel they are the worst perpetrator of everything I included in that sentence. They have a habit of reducing everything to its basest and most black n white worst. Theres very little nuance there. Thats why I used them as a metaphor for this thread.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Fox News really showed their true colors under the Bush administration. It's easy enough to criticize Obama for all of his horrendous policies, but when they were unapologetically kissing Bush's ass for the same kind of stuff before that, it showed their purpose as controlled opposition. Murdoch is said to be a straight-up NWO globalist but I do think the network is beginning to hedge their bets on the future with people like Judge Jeanine and Tucker Carlson. At least those two seem to have no filter and don't try to weaselishly feign neutrality like 90% of the others.

There is a documentary called "OutFoxed" that shows how all the major talking points on Fox were handed down from corporate executives, everything was scripted and fake. Other than the two people I just mentioned I'd say that this is still the case.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=P74oHhU5MDk

The only bad thing about this documentary is that you have to put up with looking at asshats like David Brock (of Clinton campaign infamy, James Alefantis' ex boyfriend and friend of the Rothschilds) and Al Franken. David Brock is guilty of the same and worse on behalf of George Soros for the radical left.

[ceetee9]

Posted by A Voice from the Mountains (here)
Fox News really showed their true colors under the Bush administration. It's easy enough to criticize Obama for all of his horrendous policies, but when they were unapologetically kissing Bush's ass for the same kind of stuff before that, it showed their purpose as controlled opposition.

Yes, but that's no different than MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, PBS, etc. They ALL have an agenda (which is essentially to keep the masses firmly divided and digging their heels ever deeper into their belief system(s) (political, religious, etc.) while the controllers continue their raping and pillaging and laughing at us all. In reality, there isn't any real difference between any of the MSM outlets. They all get their marching orders from the true powers-that-be and are handed their scripts from the AP (Associated Press)--as if those were the ONLY stories worth publishing on any given day. It's pretty easy to switch between the MSM channels and hear the same stories and often the same words within seconds of one another. The reporters NEVER ask any intelligent or probing questions, but only questions that serve their agenda--which is generally designed to inflame their viewers emotions to maintain the divisiveness among the slaves. They play all of us for fools with their left vs right BS and we all buy into it--as is quite evident even among many Avalonians.

And for the record, I'm not attempting to point fingers here as I've been conditioned/programmed (for decades) the same as everyone else. But I do, at least, attempt to shed that programming as much as possible. I'm not always successful though as it's not an easy task.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

The only thing that I would add to that is that despite the hijacking of our political parties, there are major historical and philosophical differences between the concept of a constitutional republic and the concept of a socialist Marxist state, and with everything else in the political world removed from the equation, these differences are fundamental and still require attention and discernment. The MSM may all be controlled opposition but that does not mean that the concepts of a strong central government and a very restrained central government are therefore the same thing, because obviously they are not.

[Mike]

Posted by A Voice from the Mountains (here)
The only thing that I would add to that is that despite the hijacking of our political parties, there are major historical and philosophical differences between the concept of a constitutional republic and the concept of a socialist Marxist state, and with everything else in the political world removed from the equation, these differences are fundamental and still require attention and discernment. The MSM may all be controlled opposition but that does not mean that the concepts of a strong central government and a very restrained central government are therefore the same thing, because obviously they are not.

i see what youre saying. but again, youre assuming the texbook best of the "right" while assuming the stereotypical worst of the "left". youve bought in to all the exaggerations and fear based accusations from the "right" (the profoundly tiresome "socialist, marxist bit) and have suggested erroneously and purposefully that they are the foundational principles of the democratic party in order to take yet another cheap political shot here...

theres this new trend of party over country, and its disturbing. maybe its been around all along; maybe im just noticing it.

its hard to have this dialogue. im not sure whats "left" anymore and whats "right". i mean, im socially left leaning but fiscally conservative. i like trump's obvious msm disdain and seeming willingness to out political criminals, but i also think he's a f#cking clown. nuance, see? political parties don't allow for that. you have to think this way, or you have to think that way..nothing in between. people blindly embrace it. like when the pope arbitrarily changes 2000 yr old catholic dogma, and the flock unquestionably goes along with it...party members are required to do the same thing. political parties are religions man. they discourage critical, independent thinking and expect you to embrace party ideology. before they even know what the new party rhetoric is, theyve embraced it..much like a mindless religionist embraces faith without question. its a sickness. proudly declaring party loyalty is akin to proudly declaring your latest frontal lobotomy.

now, if youd started by proudly declaring your love of a constitutional republic, and left the "right/left" stuff out of it, i woulda been a little more supportive. the parties love to co opt these ideas and exploit them for political leverage, but it means nothing. the "right" thinks they own 9/11, and they used this shamelessly to pass laws like the hugely ironic "patriot act". they think they own the constitution too. hate to shatter your illusion, but the average "lefty" is just as horrified by 9/11 as any "righty", and is equally desirous of a constitutional republic.

so yes, there are differences, but theyre not nearly as dramatic as the msm makes them out to be. but by allowing them to trigger us, we become just as bad as they are. and that's what "they" want.

the problem i have with the OP is that it politicizes pedophilia. it exploits pedophilia in order to take a cheap swing at "lefties"...and is therefore insincere at best and morally egregious at worst. not only that, its posture automatically triggers an "us against them" mentality, which will only divide us further and take us further from the truth. we can't fight each other and fight "them" at the same time...and thats exactly what "they" want.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by Mike (here)
i see what youre saying. but again, youre assuming the texbook best of the "right" while assuming the stereotypical worst of the "left". youve bought in to all the exaggerations and fear based accusations from the "right" (the profoundly tiresome "socialist, marxist bit) and have suggested erroneously and purposefully that they are the foundational principles of the democratic party in order to take yet another cheap political shot here...

I don't see what the pot shot is brother. I just posted links and a bunch of videos giving examples of how it's people from the ideological left, through relative morality, who are trying to normalize this stuff, from both left-wing and right-wing sources. Republican politicians are just as involved behind closed doors but you won't ever see them trying to peddle this stuff because their Bible-thumping constituents would chase them out of their districts.

I think I have stated that simply enough and yet for some reason it seems to still trigger people into virtue signalling how much more enlightened they are than me because they refuse to even come off their high horse to acknowledge any distinction whatsoever in ideology between the right and left. They may both be corrupt but the traditional cores of their platforms are most definitely not the same, as I explained above. In fact I keep explaining myself and nobody who is complaining seems to even be paying attention to what I am actually saying.

Whether you want to believe him or not, the former US House Majority Leader Tom DeLay even went on record saying that the Department of Justice had a "secret memo" prioritizing the normalization of what he called "twelve perversions," including pedophilia.

“We’ve already found a secret memo coming out of the Justice Department,” DeLay said. “They’re now going to go after 12 new perversions, things like bestiality, polygamy, having sex with little boys and making that legal. Not only that, but they have a whole list of strategies to go after the churches, the pastors, and any businesses that tries to assert their religious liberty. This is coming and it’s coming like a tidal wave.”

http://national.suntimes.com/nationa...nt-of-justice/

This is a mainstream news source and it's a former House Majority Leader who is making the claim. Between that, all the other videos and articles and the OP itself, with a BBC host letting this guy go on for 5 minutes about this crap, at some point any rational human being should realize there actually is a pattern going on here.

its hard to have this dialogue. im not sure whats "left" anymore and whats "right". i mean, im socially left leaning but fiscally conservative. i like trump's obvious msm disdain and seeming willingness to out political criminals, but i also think he's a f#cking clown. nuance, see? political parties don't allow for that. you have to think this way, or you have to think that way..nothing in between. people blindly embrace it. like when the pope arbitrarily changes 2000 yr old catholic dogma, and the flock unquestionably goes along with it...party members are required to do the same thing. political parties are religions man. they discourage critical, independent thinking and expect you to embrace party ideology. before they even know what the new party rhetoric is, theyve embraced it..much like a mindless religionist embraces faith without question. its a sickness. proudly declaring party loyalty is akin to proudly declaring your latest frontal lobotomy.

now, if youd started by proudly declaring your love of a constitutional republic, and left the "right/left" stuff out of it, i woulda been a little more supportive. the parties love to co opt these ideas and exploit them for political leverage, but it means nothing. the "right" thinks they own 9/11, and they used this shamelessly to pass laws like the hugely ironic "patriot act". they think they own the constitution too. hate to shatter your illusion, but the average "lefty" is just as horrified by 9/11 as any "righty", and is equally desirous of a constitutional republic.

so yes, there are differences, but theyre not nearly as dramatic as the msm makes them out to be. but by allowing them to trigger us, we become just as bad as they are. and that's what "they" want.

All this stuff you are going on about is just mainstream political stuff. I'm not concerned with what a bunch of crooks are saying in Washington DC because most everything they tell you is a lie anyway.

I'm a history major. I'm looking at this from the big picture, from the late 1700's onward. All of this stuff didn't just originate yesterday. Unless you know the history of the Jacobins and Marxists in Europe and how the early American republic differentiated itself from these ideologies then you're not going to have a good grasp on how these things have evolved to get us to where we're at today. You won't understand the real philosophical differences underlying these schools of thought. The swamp creatures in Washington are never going to bother explaining it either because it would embarrass all of them.

the problem i have with the OP is that it politicizes pedophilia. it exploits pedophilia in order to take a cheap swing at "lefties"...and is therefore insincere at best and morally egregious at worst.

It just seems to me that you want to say both sides are bad but really you must still feel sympathy on some level for the left, or you wouldn't be complaining about me using the word so much. If it was the neo-cons publicly trying to normalize this stuff (which it isn't, though they engage in it behind closed doors nonetheless) and I trash talked them instead, would you still be here complaining about it? Because I complain about them both.

not only that, its posture automatically triggers an "us against them" mentality, which will only divide us further and take us further from the truth. we can't fight each other and fight "them" at the same time...and thats exactly what "they" want.

If you are against both of them then you shouldn't be triggered no matter which side I attack.

[Ewan]

Fellow UK'ers please correct me if I'm wrong here, as I've mentioned before I'm largely apolitical and have never paid much attention to shifting ideologies over the years, but didn't, traditionally, the BBC lean towards the Tories (trad. right) while the ITV's would be more Labour (trad. left) orientated?

Now it is the 'leftist' BBC?

Did something happen that I was just not paying attention to, has the right been infected by mindless liberalism, (as opposed to considered, grounded liberalism - I think there is a distinction there). Or is (political) liberalism infecting both sides in various ways. It is getting very confusing for me, I see the term neoliberalism being used in the media and elsewhere, is this the infection, where did it come from?

I just toddled off to The Political Compass to check if I still held the same views as previously and yep, there I was still sitting 2 squares away from Ghandi. Politically that apparently makes me Libertarian Left but it seems it would almost be unsafe to tell someone you are a liberal now, aren't they being equated with all the madness? Someone ignorant of history might consider Ghandi as a radical nutcase purely by those labels, (mind you, I suppose some actually do). Didn't many of the so-called intellectuals also inhabit that region, left, liberal. Diametrically opposed to the authoritarian right and domain of Margeret Thatcher. Does this mean I actually am political despite my protestations to the contrary? I didn't like Thatcher much, maybe I've been lying to myself all this time.

Is someone playing with the meanings of liberal in an attempt to confuse me, because it is working.

[norman]

Being a liberal is one thing. I've always been a liberal.

My kind of liberal has been forced to go 'conservative' by a weaponised progressive hijacking of liberal politics. I can now call myself a conservative, and that's something I never thought I would do.

Just about all higher education has been marinated in moral relativism since the 1920s. Primary schools joined in later. At some point, it seems to me, actual education was dropped and that left the background ISM masquerading as education. Add to that an unpayable debt for all students who feel compelled to put themselves through this Orwellian boot camp, and it's arrived at this deadly toxic situation we now find ourselves in.

[Baby Steps]

Posted by Ewan (here)
Fellow UK'ers please correct me if I'm wrong here, as I've mentioned before I'm largely apolitical and have never paid much attention to shifting ideologies over the years, but didn't, traditionally, the BBC lean towards the Tories (trad. right) while the ITV's would be more Labour (trad. left) orientated?

Now it is the 'leftist' BBC?

Did something happen that I was just not paying attention to, has the right has been infected by mindless liberalism, (as opposed to considered, grounded liberalism - I think there is a distinction there). Or is (political) liberalism infecting both sides in various ways. It is getting very confusing for me, I see the term neoliberalism being used in the media and elsewhere, is this the infection, where did it come from?

I just toddled off to The Political Compass to check if I still held the same views as previously and yep, there I was still sitting 2 squares away from Ghandi. Politically that apparently makes me Libertarian Left but it seems it would almost be unsafe to tell someone you are a liberal now, aren't they being equated with all the madness? Someone ignorant of history might consider Ghandi as a radical nutcase purely by those labels, (mind you, I suppose some actually do). Didn't many of the so-called intellectuals also inhabit that region, left, liberal. Diametrically opposed to the authoritarian right and domain of Margeret Thatcher. Does this mean I actually am political despite my protestations to the contrary? I didn't like Thatcher much, maybe I've been lying to myself all this time.

Is someone playing with the meanings of liberal in an attempt to confuse me, because it is working.

He he.

For me it goes like this...

For UK'ers 'liberal' is rooted in the Old Whig party who were progressive, less authoritarian than the Tories, and pro democracy. This is now the UK centre ground, that has morphed into a sludgy group of NWO apologists, who mouth slogans about rights, but would be happy to sign up for whatever corporate dominated supra national soviet was proposed, because not to do so would be racist.

There is another term - 'Neo liberal' which seems to be more economic, and to me represents the little discussed consensus within the EU etc, towards handing power to corporations, and freeing up labour markets. There is good evidence that freer labour markets lead to higher employment. Just compare UK to France, then look at employment protections in those two countries. That argument - that making it easier to hire & fire leads to higher employment holds water. So the EU German dominated bureaucrats are trying to make continental labour markets perform like the UK. The other strand again uses strong evidence for free trade and globalisation- that they generally promote prosperity - to force the corporate agenda on us.

In USA the term liberal seems to denote 'neo-socialist', because it is a more palatable word.

I have generally seen the BBC position as centre. From the USA point of view a European centre position would be seen as left.

The BBC now is being seriously undermined by government influence to the point where it has no more credibility than a communist government news service. We have James Harding, a close friend of George Osbourne running BBC news, and it shows. The service is getting blander, and more on board with the lies every day. Dissent from the Government line rarely happens. This would probably remain the case if we had a Blairite style Labour administration ie one fully compliant with the agenda. The BBC is doing as much as it can to undermine Corbyn, who is NOT on board with the agenda.

The BBC got into alot of trouble for starting to investigate the Pedo scandal, and since then they have left well alone.

They have a Charter including the usual Journalistic obligations. This they obviously flout continuously, and some have won their cases where they refuse to pay the license fee on the basis that 9-11 coverage was fake news. They should be challenged on their Charter, but they are still better than most sadly.

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by norman (here)
Being a liberal is one thing. I've always been a liberal.

My kind of liberal has been forced to go 'conservative' by a weaponised progressive hijacking of liberal politics. I can now call myself a conservative, and that's something I never thought I would do.

Same here. I used to despise conservatism during the Bush years, but that was really "neo-conservatism" which is just right-wing globalism. Just like the left in the US today isn't truly liberal either but "neo-liberal" or just straight up globalists and Marxists more like.

Classical liberalism is about freedom and liberty. "My freedom ends where yours begins" type of thing, ie you're free to do whatever you want as long as you're not hurting anyone else in the process. I like that philosophy. It came out of the Renaissance and Enlightenment.

Classical liberalism began to be hijacked by the Jacobins during the French Revolution and then by the Marxists in the 1800's. It hasn't been the same since.

Posted by Ewan (here)
Is someone playing with the meanings of liberal in an attempt to confuse me, because it is working.

Yes. It's evolved to mean different things in different countries, and has changed over time too. Britain is centered much farther to the left (ie is more socialist) than the US, like Baby Steps said.

In Brazil I believe the socialists are actually considered right-wing, so it can get very confusing. I'm sure on some level at least some of these conflations are on purpose. If you point out that the Nazis were a socialist party, and even called themselves socialists right in their own name, a lot of people will flip out about how "obvious" it is that they were actually on the extreme right and "everybody knows it," etc., but then it goes back to the question of how they are defining the term "right," because again, it means different things in different places. Republicanism in the US is traditionally about very limited government and the Nazis were the exact opposite of that, with a very powerful central government.

Our founding fathers in the US considered themselves liberals but by today's standards their philosophy of government would be way off to the right. Back in the early 1800's the classical liberal Republicans wouldn't even let the federal government build national highways, seeing that as a serious overreach of federal power. Fast forward 200 years and now you have Obama trying to force every American to buy health insurance, and allow men into women's bathrooms. Not quite the same idea of liberalism.

[sheme]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39335904

"A group of 72 MPs have written to the BBC accusing it of being pessimistic and skewed in its Brexit coverage - in the months since the vote on the EU.
In a letter to the director general, they said the BBC is "unfairly representing" Leave voters by focusing on those who regret their decision.
The MPs warned the future of the BBC "will be in doubt" if it is not seen as a impartial broker.

The BBC said it was its job to "scrutinise and analyse" Brexit issues."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2014/0...tried-to-hide/

The Dark festering State is pulling the Beebs strings once again.

[norman]

Those MPs should also ask for the minutes of the meeting that made the decision to transfer the World Service from the foreign office to the BBC itself. And, while they're at it, they should look into the history and the timing of the closure of the propaganda department ( MI 17) a couple of years after the BBC was up and running.

Apologists for the BBC often remark that the BBC must be doing something right if the government is always threatening to cut it's funding. As I see it, that's a bass akwards way of looking at the relationship between the BBC and the government. The government keeps on threatening to cut it's funding to keep it in line and doing it's bidding. The BBC replaced the department of propaganda. Propaganda works best when it's disguised as independent media.

[petra]

This looks like an example of a hyper-dimensional attack to me
It sounds like the radio man was in some kind of temporary trance. What a time to get distracted!
Even when he became "flustered" he allowed it to continue!
I imagine he wondered "what in the heck was I thinking??"
Moral of this story for me? NEVER be too polite.... ;-)

[A Voice from the Mountains]

Posted by Joe (here)
The terms left and right are describing polarities of the same dynamic - collectivism. This is the same way hot and cold are actually measures of polarity for temperature. So the actual true opposite of collectivism is individualism.

I don't believe that is necessarily true. Right and left don't mean the same thing everywhere, like I pointed out above, and neither have they meant the same thing over time, though both admittedly (at least until very recently in the US) are just different flavors of globalism.

The concept of Jeffersonian democracy is also about individualism and is most closely aligned with traditional Republican values in the US (devolved authority, restraint of federal overreach, etc.). Despite the establishment Republican party going off the rails and even signing their souls over to the globalist neo-cons in many cases, there are still a large number of everyday people who know their history well enough to still support those founding principles. And these are actually principles of classical liberalism, from the Enlightenment.

[Rocky_Shorz]

Don't put division in your title. Ever it is an insult to everyone not standing in your shoes...


Our enemies aren't each other, bastard RIGHTIST BBC broadcast bldg 7 had come down 20 minutes before it did for Bush and Cheney...

Know your enemies, respect your friends

You could have the same discussion without the insult in your title.

I have always been on the right side, the other is the wrong side.

I'm on the changes side, which is the right party. Everything is perfect don't change a thing is the bastard lefties...

The Right thing to do is feed starving children.
The Right thing to do is not to throw families out of their home when parents can't find jobs
The right thing to do for an $800 Trillion dollar nation, is cover all citizens with health care.

So don't insult me calling me a leftist, my beliefs are as right as they come...

[Bruno]

Left right, left right.

As many have already pointed out notions of left and right vary greatly depending on the part of the world you live in.

As a Canadian I tend to label myself as being on the left because I believe in what I would describe as collectivist ideas. Some Americans I realize would see my beliefs as Socialist or even Marxist. This makes me laugh however as I do believe in individual rights and freedoms, property ownership and most capitalist ideals. I don't want big government and a lot of legislation, who does? However, trickle down economics doesn't seem to adhere to conventional forms of gravity, because I don't see it trickling down. Unfortunately most people who are wealthy only want to be more wealthy. Yes, many people have worked very hard for their wealth, but countless people work hard and are not wealthy.

I think the government should through taxation ensure that all people have fair and equal access to water, food, shelter, healthcare and education. If we still want to pretend in the west that everyone has the same opportunities it's the least we can do. Given the trillions of dollars that are spent on wars annually (financed by "right wing" and "left wing" governments across the planet) we certainly have the money to do all of these things if people truly wanted it to happen.

If it's wrong to be on the left or believe in wealth redistribution or free health care or free education, than I will happily die "wrong" but be at peace with my soul.

[turiya]

Its not only where you live but what individuals - a group of individuals - believe in... as it should be understood, by this time, that often times belief trumps truth...

I mean, its fine to say that left right, right left... it very well may not matter to you, personally. But if you are looking at the masses of people and what they 'believe'... then it certainly does matter. Propaganda serves its purpose when it affects what the masses of people will think, believe & act on...

Nice idea... to think, believe, what government should do... but there really is no such thing as 'government' - it really doesn't exist.

The only thing that is real are the individuals that make up what is thought of as a 'government'. The people are real. And they individually think makes up the collective... creates the status quo mindset. Certainly, right & left have their extremes... when either extreme becomes status quo, then it needs to be brought back to center through an opposing force... an opposing ideology.

We humans have been given a gift of physical life... one has a choice in living that life... one can choose to live a horizontal life as a cow... a water buffalo... a goat... Animals walk on all four of their legs & feet... The farmer will move the herd to water, to the feeding trough... call on a vet when the cow gets sick... and then take the cow to the barn for milk to be extracted from... the tax is extracted... the cow learns (education) & comes to know what a 'cattle prod' means...

That's how government works. This would be what I would call: living a 'horizontal' life... walking on four legs, moving from birth to death as any animal does... Not much to think about. Just do what you've been conditioned, trained, educated to do... a good conformist will have a peaceful life & happily die when its time... ignorance is bliss.

Animals receive their instincts from mother nature... mother nature informs animals what is to be done in various situation while living their lives... For example, mother nature tells the bird what needs to be done in order to make a nest for the laying of its eggs...

The other choice is to live a life on a vertical plane... Human beings are different than animals. They generally do not get their instincts from mother nature. Unlike animals, human beings walk on their two feet. And there is a good reason for it... Standing erect makes it so the fine nervous system is developed that make up the brain matter. Because of these fine nervous system network, intelligence manifests...

In order to survive on this Earth, human beings have the capacity to reason & make intelligent choices. Living vertically one can make very intelligent choices. Living horizontally, poorer choices will be made. And more than likely, allowing others to make your choices for you. Government, the people of government, like to prod the people by telling them what they need to do.

I prefer to make my own choices over the use of a cattle prod.

Daily News Segment - CTM #711- With John B Wells
(Published on Mar 23, 2017)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=skV2_Oy0yCc

[awakeningmom]

Posted by Bruno (here)
Left right, left right.

As many have already pointed out notions of left and right vary greatly depending on the part of the world you live in.

As a Canadian I tend to label myself as being on the left because I believe in what I would describe as collectivist ideas. Some Americans I realize would see my beliefs as Socialist or even Marxist. This makes me laugh however as I do believe in individual rights and freedoms, property ownership and most capitalist ideals. I don't want big government and a lot of legislation, who does? However, trickle down economics doesn't seem to adhere to conventional forms of gravity, because I don't see it trickling down. Unfortunately most people who are wealthy only want to be more wealthy. Yes, many people have worked very hard for their wealth, but countless people work hard and are not wealthy.

I think the government should through taxation ensure that all people have fair and equal access to water, food, shelter, healthcare and education. If we still want to pretend in the west that everyone has the same opportunities it's the least we can do. Given the trillions of dollars that are spent on wars annually (financed by "right wing" and "left wing" governments across the planet) we certainly have the money to do all of these things if people truly wanted it to happen.

If it's wrong to be on the left or believe in wealth redistribution or free health care or free education, than I will happily die "wrong" but be at peace with my soul.

I found this website that appears to be geared towards 'educating' American students about what the labels "liberal" and "conservative" generally mean here.

https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/con...beral-beliefs/

I wonder how many of us agree with this assessment of each side's position on various issues and/or would cross the aisle (so to speak) on many of these positions -- I know I would. I too have always believed there should be a governmental safety net of some sort for those in need, and absolutely still believe that all people are entitled to clean food, clean water, safe and clean shelter, healthcare, and education. But since waking up to 9-11, I also don't trust the U.S. government anymore, so I no longer have the classic 'liberal' ideology (as defined by this student aimed website).

But I have always thought of Republicans as greedy white men who want to increase military spending, cut social programs for the needy, impose their own (often feigned) Christian beliefs on the rest of the world, and keep government out of everything except when it comes to a woman's right to control her own body. But funny how awakening to the larger agenda messes with one's former beliefs and makes one realize how we've been purposely divided and propagandized on both sides.

[sheme]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/...t-isnt-biased/ Well written piece in my favorite journal.

[norman]

Posted by sheme (here)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/03/...t-isnt-biased/ Well written piece in my favorite journal.

That was a good read for a guy who hates long reads. Only stating the obvious but doing it so poetically.

On bias in the media, especially the Beeb. As a general rule of thumb, if they do a feature presenting two sides to an issue, the side they present first is the side they want to bury under the side they follow it up with.

So, it usually goes like this. Announce the issue with a mildly provocative and attention grabbing intro. Then present the side of the story the attention grabbing intro announces. Then move on to the counter view point, and eventually put the whole thing to bed and kiss the babies good night