For someone so concerned about injustice towards his own group, this seems callous dismissal of someone else receiving an injustice based on a different group. If you don't see why it's important, perhaps you need to understand what principles are (reading your other posts on the California gay marriage decision further underscores your need to understand basic principles).

--Ron

<<Why is this relevant?? We are in the midst of a national election!!!!

What drives our media with the obession over Israel politics???>>

Are you saying they have no set of laws? Perhaps it's not called a "constitution" but I'm certain they have a legal system and laws, and serves the function of a constitution. And, sorry to disappoint you, I'm unlikely to go insane or ever call anyone an evil Yid. Is that a case of projection on your part?

--Ron

<<There is no Israeli constitution. And before you go all insane about the eeeeeeeeeevulll Yids with no rule of law, lots countries don't have a constitution, like the UK for instance.

It's weird though, in Israel Arabs get to participate in free and fair open elections in a participatory parliamentary democracy. I blame the fucking Jews for that. How dare they do something denied all the Arabs in Arab countries. Why they are so evil that Satan himself collects their dry cleaning.

-- Electro Robot>>

I actually wasn't aware that any postings were ever deleted until I read about it here today (I apparently missed you saying something before, perhaps in one of the threads, which I don't always have a chance to read all the way through). I'm sure it must be difficult to make that decision, though it's certainly justified. Anyway, now that I realize this does happen, I'll know not to bother replying when it becomes apparent a poster's posts are being deleted as disruptive or what-have-you. I'd actually been thinking it was getting tedious going through some of this, and had always wondered how you could do it!

--Ron

The founders of our country recognized the need for freedom of the press, and gave them special protections for a reason. The reason should be obvious.

The airwaves do currently belong to the public, and are leased/licensed to certain public/private entities, with agreements in place as to a requirement that they serve the public good. I think what you disagree with is that that they should be sold by the government and in private hands. That is a free market position, and I wouldn't disagree with that myself. I really don't think in a free market anyone could become a monopoly on information or news, but they easily could in our current mixed economy. So, unless we can get from our current mixed economy to a free one (we've never had an entirely free market, the government has always had legislative ability in the market sphere), then the networks do have obligations they are not meeting. It doesn't take much objective thinking to realize that what passes for news on the major broadcast networks is not journalism, but is instead propaganda.

In a free market or a mixed economy, there's still a need to point out the truth, and that is what Mr. Greenwald is doing. He's exposing their hypocrisy and making it plain that they are not doing their jobs.

At any rate, whether a free or mixed economy, there are contracts. The contracts the broadcasters have require their serving the public good. The public good is obviously not being served by being a propaganda arm of the government, and thus they are not meeting their contractual obligations. You might argue that's an improper licensing requirement, but it's there nonetheless. Perhaps you have some other point you're trying to make?

--Ron

I hope to, well, whatever (I don't believe in god) that not all of them are like the ones here and like what I see on Talkingpointsmemo (a once good site that rarely is any more), and elsewhere.

Joan is right, it was the Obama campaign that pushed that meme about RFK after it was first put forth by the NY Post (or is it Sun, the NY Murdoch Paper that's not the Wall Street Journal). As was pointed out by Somerby, even THEY retracted it as unsupportable, yet Obama's campaign still kept the spin going, and his willing spin enablers in the media, and his most obnoxious fans still want to say it's other than what it obviously was, a statement about primaries running into June! It should be obvious, even to the dumbest among you, that's what she was talking about.

Was it an unfortunate remark? Only somewhat, since she could probably have known the idiots would have a heyday with it, as indeed they have and do.

There may be legitimate reasons to be for Obama and not Clinton, but this is not one of them. You do yourself, Obama or the democrats chances of winning this November no favor with bullshit like this. Oh yeah, raise your hand if you think the Clintons are racists? You're idiots, too.

Yes, I know Obama is the likely nominee, and I'll vote for him, but I'll have to hold my nose to do so. How I wish I could sit it out, or write in someone else's name, but too much is at stake. So thanks, all you Obama supporters, you're doing a GREAT job bringing him more support! If he loses this fall, it'll be your own damned fault.

--Ron

I'm still going to vote for Obama this fall.

Since everyone is so thrilled giving advice to each other here, I'll offer some of my own:

Shut up. 99% of the people posting here having nothing useful to say, and are doing nothing that would make anyone want to vote for their candidate. There are exceptions, but not many.

--Ron