Soldiers don’t get to vote on whether or not they agree with the war they’re ordered to fight.

They get the same vote the rest of get. They get to choose whether to place themselves under the authority of the real world political system.

However, I think you missed the main point I was trying to make. Political ideology is a much more powerful military motivator than money. Soldiers fighting for a cause, democracy, communism, country etc are much more effective than mercenaries. Ideology drives soldiers to sacrifice themselves for a greater good as they see it. Money cannot induce people to do that.

Likewise, in the civilian political realm, political ideology creates a stronger drive to bias than does financial incentives.

I think that very demeaning and disrespectful of people in military. I know its all the rage to portray them alternatively as monsters or exploited children but I find that vile.”

I intend neither. Fighting for others’ political beliefs is neither monstrous nor naive – it’s selfless and noble. And it’s also realistic. Soldiers don’t get to vote on whether or not they agree with the war they’re ordered to fight.

I’m curious: what would you cite as an example of someone voting based on an UNBIASED political recommendation?

Well, obviously I meant unbiased information from a media source. After all, the vast majority of media sources claim to sell accurate and objective information that you can use to make your own decisions. Isn’t that what you personally pay for? I mean, you don’t buy news products just to get a reprint of this or that politician’s press releases. You buy an independent source of information.

No, soldiers most often fight and die for other people’s political beliefs

I think that very demeaning and disrespectful of people in military. I know its all the rage to portray them alternatively as monsters or exploited children but I find that vile. American soldiers follow the orders of the political leadership because they believe in the American system.

Thirdly, if one is fighting for one of the private military contractors, the pay is not so paltry.

Which just goes to prove my point. There are 1.2 million service people today versus less than 10,000 paramilitary private security people. We pay a low grade service person well under 20,000 dollars but that same person can make $150,000-$200,000 working privately. Clearly, if a person can make ten times their salary working privately, then their political beliefs must strongly influence their choice.

Bottom line, politics are biased by definition. The best you can hope for is transparency regarding those biases, but since politics is also about deception, good luck with that.

I couldn’t have put it better myself which is why the FTC needs to step in to provide consumers knowledge about of the political biases of the people who claim to sell objective information.

The list:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455/

It’s not even close or arguable which party the media supports and which candidate for President in 2008 they supported. At what point does a journalist stop being merely biased and start being a political activist? When they open their wallets and put their money where their mouths and keyboards are. And that, folks, is for the Democrat Party. The end.

As Woodward and Bernstein famously remarked, “follow the money.”

I’m curious: what would you cite as an example of someone voting based on an UNBIASED political recommendation? What IS an unbiased political recommendation, and how would one identify it?

“Soldiers fight and die for their political beliefs, not their paltry pay.”

No, soldiers most often fight and die for other people’s political beliefs. And even in today’s volunteer army, soldiers fight when and where they are ordered to fight, by whomever is the commander in chief. Thirdly, if one is fighting for one of the private military contractors, the pay is not so paltry.

Bottom line, politics are biased by definition. The best you can hope for is transparency regarding those biases, but since politics is also about deception, good luck with that.

Also would ABC itself be offering the new plan to its employees instead of its existing plan?

MSNBC is heavily skewed left, but we also see John Harwood at NBC who needs to get a room every time he talks about Obama. Then, there is the censoring at CNBC. Dylan Rattigan is gone after a rant on the government funded payouts by AIG to the the likes of Goldman and foreign banks. Santelli has been muzzled after his rant suggesting tea parties.

GE is a prime example of a rent seeking company that should not be allowed to own media companies to pursue its rent seeking.

That is not paranoia. That is reaching conclusions based on facts.

This is about politics, not money. The point is to make blogging more onerous and risky. Since most people do it as a hobby and make no money on it, a small increase in the risk and cost of doing it should — which is the goal of Obama and his people — shut down the “blogosphere” entirely. A few high-profile prosecutions and most people will just stop doing it. Game over.

That is the point.

There is zero chance this will be applied to the MSM. To the contrary, they are going to get government bail outs.

The overt use of government power to help one’s political allies and hurt one’s opponents is very much the school Obama, Axelrod and Emmanuel grew up in, the Democrats have successfully created a one-party operation in Chicago/Cook for decades. That is the goal nationally.

America, welcome to Chicago.