| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Neolibertarian
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 4:06 am Post subject: Re: American Malaise |
 |
|
In article <jthm33pvsvfcjf81e39vd8tnt0avrj606l@4ax.com>,
retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
| Quote: |
On Fri, 04 May 2007 00:29:01 -0500, Neolibertarian
cognac756@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <gfel33hrsnumcs7oo9482nhvn0q5b6g5jo@4ax.com>,
retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2007 01:51:42 GMT, Neolibertarian <cognac756@gmail.com
wrote:
The president, quote, she said, "The president has inherent authority to
conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence
purposes." Now this is against the domestic people.
"And the rules and methodologies for criminal searches are inconsistent
with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate
the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."
You're aware of that quote.
Except of course if you read FISa it doesn't apply to the agents of
foreign countries. Warrantless searches are okay for foreign agents on
the plain text of the law.
Well, that might be relevant...in some other conversation.
"HATCH: And the Clinton administration also authorized the warrantless
search of the Mississippi home of a suspected terrorist financier. Is
that correct? "
aside from hatchet boy Hatch, who's lied and twisted repeatedly in his
efforts to divert from the illegal and clearly unethical to protect
Bush and the GOP do you have detail, real facts on this case? Or are
you grasping at a partisan helping hand thrown out in a hearing from a
guy who's a known liar?
|
http://elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Sounds/two_of_three_x.wav
| Quote: |
The Goerlick quote is not out of context.
Just your characterization and conclusion.
|
http://elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Sounds/oh_you.wav
| Quote: |
Sooner or later, the Dems should prolly realize there needs to be a
breach of the law, or an actual crime, before they start shooting out
the subpoenas.
They just convicted a guy for not leaking the identity of a CIA employee
who wasn't undercover. They keep that kind of thing up and it will
surely backfire.
Um the democrats haven't "convicted" anyone. Your grasp on the facts
and interpretations are so twisted by your desire for advocacy as to
show how totally wrong headed you are.
|
http://elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Sounds/nobrain.wav
| Quote: |
Even the hayseeds will start to realize what this is all really about,
eventually.
Yep, the Constitution.
|
http://elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Sounds/right_between.wav
--
NeoLibertarian
"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."
---Will Rogers |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Day Brown
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 9:59 am Post subject: Re: American Malaise |
|
|
On May 4, 6:06 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Even the hayseeds will start to realize what this is all really about,
eventually.
Yep, the Constitution.
The Constitution was designed by the Founding Farmers who were much |
better educated than the leadership we have now.
We have the studies which show that exercise improved mental
functioning. Those dudes were physically active, and had read enough
of Pliny and the other ancient sages to know exercise was important.
They were not a buncha lard butt rich lawyers. And if that's who is
now running the show, it dont really matter what the constitution
says, it only means what *(they* say it means.
Gibbon began publishing his monumental "The Decline & Fall of the
Roman Empire" in 1776, the first volume of which begins with the fall
of the Republic into tyranny. It had a big impact on the thinking of
the Founding Farmers, so if you want to know what they had in mind,
read Gibbon. I doubt very much of the powers that now be have. I see
no sign in their policy. Gibbon:"The people believed religion was
true. The philosophers thot religion was false. The policiticians knew
religion was useful." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 8:58 pm Post subject: Re: American Malaise |
|
|
On Fri, 04 May 2007 18:06:56 -0500, Neolibertarian
<cognac756@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <jthm33pvsvfcjf81e39vd8tnt0avrj606l@4ax.com>,
retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2007 00:29:01 -0500, Neolibertarian
cognac756@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <gfel33hrsnumcs7oo9482nhvn0q5b6g5jo@4ax.com>,
retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2007 01:51:42 GMT, Neolibertarian <cognac756@gmail.com
wrote:
The president, quote, she said, "The president has inherent authority to
conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence
purposes." Now this is against the domestic people.
"And the rules and methodologies for criminal searches are inconsistent
with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate
the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."
You're aware of that quote.
Except of course if you read FISa it doesn't apply to the agents of
foreign countries. Warrantless searches are okay for foreign agents on
the plain text of the law.
Well, that might be relevant...in some other conversation.
"HATCH: And the Clinton administration also authorized the warrantless
search of the Mississippi home of a suspected terrorist financier. Is
that correct? "
aside from hatchet boy Hatch, who's lied and twisted repeatedly in his
efforts to divert from the illegal and clearly unethical to protect
Bush and the GOP do you have detail, real facts on this case? Or are
you grasping at a partisan helping hand thrown out in a hearing from a
guy who's a known liar?
http://elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Sounds/two_of_three_x.wav
FISA was bypassed in a warrantless search and seizure of a US residence
in the former administration.
It's not bypassed when it has a specific exemption that applies to the
case.
http://elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Sounds/getwise.wav
The Goerlick quote is not out of context.
Just your characterization and conclusion.
http://elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Sounds/oh_you.wav
After further review, the play stands as called.
Still wrong.
http://elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Sounds/shocking.wav
Sooner or later, the Dems should prolly realize there needs to be a
breach of the law, or an actual crime, before they start shooting out
the subpoenas.
They just convicted a guy for not leaking the identity of a CIA employee
who wasn't undercover. They keep that kind of thing up and it will
surely backfire.
Um the democrats haven't "convicted" anyone. Your grasp on the facts
and interpretations are so twisted by your desire for advocacy as to
show how totally wrong headed you are.
http://elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Sounds/nobrain.wav
Even the hayseeds will start to realize what this is all really about,
eventually.
Yep, the Constitution.
http://elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/Sounds/right_between.wav
|
Oh boy. Sound effects. That's the extent of your intellectual response
capabilities? Sheesh.
-----
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the
power to make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Neolibertarian
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 10:26 am Post subject: Re: American Malaise |
|
|
In article <1178341146.542759.204510@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Day Brown <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On May 4, 6:06 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
Even the hayseeds will start to realize what this is all really about,
eventually.
Yep, the Constitution.
The Constitution was designed by the Founding Farmers who were much
better educated than the leadership we have now.
|
"Better educated," as if that were the answer.
Drop all of my former college professors in the Colorado Mountains,
naked with two matches, a canteen, and a Swiss Army knife.
They're all dead within a week. I guarantee it. Maybe a couple of them
would survive--they were actually intelligent (not just well educated).
The Founding Dads...well, they knew about survival first. That /was/
their education. They looked around, and they saw a bunch of lard-butt
lawyers from Over There, Over There, claiming they owned them.
They looked down in their own hands and saw a gun.
They looked at the lard-butt lawyers' hands and saw no calluses. And
gold rings. And fancy quill pens. And no guns.
Only writs. Which said who owned who.
| Quote: |
We have the studies which show that exercise improved mental
functioning. Those dudes were physically active, and had read enough
of Pliny and the other ancient sages to know exercise was important.
|
The man sleeping in the White House tonight is the most physically fit
President in American history.
Hands down.
They just don't like to make much of a deal about it, since, you know,
he's not allowed to be popular anymore.
You achieve 90%, and the opposition party will never forgive you.
Gerald Ford comes in a close second. An All-American in his youth, he
was a world class athlete into his late 70's.
| Quote: |
They were not a buncha lard butt rich lawyers. And if that's who is
now running the show, it dont really matter what the constitution
says, it only means what *(they* say it means.
|
The constitution doesn't mean anything to anyone until they /have/ one.
Ergo: you don't inherit your civilization--you only inherit the /ruins/
of your civilization.
| Quote: |
Gibbon began publishing his monumental "The Decline & Fall of the
Roman Empire" in 1776, the first volume of which begins with the fall
of the Republic into tyranny. It had a big impact on the thinking of
the Founding Farmers, so if you want to know what they had in mind,
read Gibbon. I doubt very much of the powers that now be have. I see
no sign in their policy. Gibbon:"The people believed religion was
true. The philosophers thot religion was false. The policiticians knew
religion was useful."
|
They had Dictators in the hey day of the Republic, too.
The state, itself, was the tyranny. As it always is.
--
NeoLibertarian
"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."
---Will Rogers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Neolibertarian
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 10:28 am Post subject: Re: American Malaise |
|
|
In article <tbap3399o4kbstlia4fspnv34k7rh2lejq@4ax.com>,
retrogrouch@comcast.net wrote:
--
NeoLibertarian
"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."
---Will Rogers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Neolibertarian
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 10:50 am Post subject: Re: American Malaise |
|
|
In article <1177884389.404302.296090@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Day Brown <daybrown@hughes.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Apr 29, 1:51 pm, Gunner <gun...@lightspeed.net> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 17:45:11 GMT, "_invertebrate_"
_invertebra...@wormhole.va> wrote:
Actually, I'm describing the mainstream media. It's just the big dumb dog
on the leash of the rightwing propaganda machine.
Blink blink....now let me get this straight..you are claiming Mainstream
Media is rightwing?
Blink blink....
Depends on who getsta define 'rightwing'. But for one, no government
has ever had to contend with the internet this much, so the attempts
by the Bush administration to control the flow of information and
manipulate it has never been so obvious to so many.
|
The internet is nothing, if it isn't an international porn ring.
The flow of information is just as controllable as it ever was.
The problem with the internet is that it's not just an opiate, it's the
main line heroine for the masses.
It endlessly distracts The Peepul from the truth.
But then, the Peepul can't even define truth in the first place. It's a
planet wide telephone system, used to create myspace Warholian quarter
hours of fame---24/7.
You do the math.
--
NeoLibertarian
"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."
---Will Rogers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
_invertebrate_
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject: Re: American Malaise |
|
|
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-1ABBA2.00261906052007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
| Quote: |
The man sleeping in the White House tonight is the most physically fit
President in American history.
Hands down.
They just don't like to make much of a deal about it, since, you know,
he's not allowed to be popular anymore.
|
The left-wing media brings it up every now and then to mock him. More
commonly they just refer to him riding his bike during major emergencies.
I don't think his fitness really plays in his favor, politically. It is a
reminder how little time he spends doing his real job. He needs exercise
and other down time from Presidential work to just work away his anxiety at
the job he has to do.
The mainstream media might be doing him a small favor by ignoring how much
he exercises.
| Quote: |
They had Dictators in the hey day of the Republic, too.
The state, itself, was the tyranny. As it always is.
|
Anarchist.
_invertebrate_ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
_invertebrate_
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 11:21 pm Post subject: Re: American Malaise |
|
|
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-45A74B.20503103052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
| Quote: |
In article <3fc_h.5960$YW4.8@trndny06>,
"_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-91CF27.18360929042007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <HQ4Zh.610$kg1.453@trndny04>,
"_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-2911FC.02172728042007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
In article <1177744005.823233.215770@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
lorad474@cs.com wrote:
Stupifaction within the educational system is another factor.
And then, of course, there is the new orchestrated propaganda
machine
in operation - which an american public has never been subjected to
You mean the one where they're attempting to discredit conservatism
by
calling it "neoconservatism?"
The one that ignores the unprecedented secrecy policy of this White
House,
You need to define "unprecedented."
Perhaps. They certainly increased secrecy from what it had been. Maybe
it's best to just describe what this administration has done.
No, it's best to first describe what previous administrations have done,
in order to avoid the Fallacy of the Biased Sample.
No administration operates transparently. It is a necessary
precondition
to the office.
Of course.
If you are indeed expressing the notion that you believe an
administration should operate in complete transparency, I'd contend
that
you've never given the exigencies much thought.
Did you see me express such a notion? No, you didn't.
I said "if."
Waxman has reported on this administration's increased secrecy. Ashcroft
in
2001 instructed government agencies to use technicalities to resist any
Freedom of Information Act requests. In 2003 Bush expanded the use of
national security classification. We are well aware of how the
administration has resisted judicial oversight of surveillance
activities.
Congress was informed at every step--which is how/where the story of the
warrantless wiretaps was cracked in the first place.
==begin quote==
|
Your quote is an argument that the President has the power to do warrantless
searches, and not a conclusive one. It does not advance your claim that
Congress was informed.
Who was the suspected terrorism financier who had his Mississippi home
searched? I can't find him.
What is the evidence that Congress was informed? Were all the right people
informed? Were they fully informed? What legal standard is there for the
administration to meet that allows them to forgo warrants?
| Quote: |
Let's take a look at the secrecy of the Carter administration for a
moment. His was a particularly "open and honest" administration, or so
he and many have claimed.
There's many examples that would work, but this one is particularly
shocking:
==Begin Quote==
[snip]
==End Quote==
---Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski
Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
The difference between Carter and Bush is that secrets such as this,
which completely undermine administration policy positions, is that
Carter's secrets were kept until long past a time they mattered.
|
Have you done a full unbiased analysis of the use of secrecy by Bush and by
Carter? I haven't, but I suspect you haven't either. If you have,
summarize your conclusions in some detail.
| Quote: |
that ignores questions of legality regarding our tactics in Iraq (like
our
attack on Fallujah),
There was no legal obstacle to attacking Fallujah. If you're referring
to the use of incendiaries, you're sadly mistaken if you think these
were "illegal."
You are entitled to believe it is legal to violate UN conventions, but
violations are a valid subject for media scrutiny.
No ratified UN conventions were violated. Period.
|
I guess they're not UN conventions. The article below argues that the
Fallujah attack was a "violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention,
Protocol III to the Convention on Conventional Weapons and international
humanitarian law." I haven't managed to work my way through the whole
thing.
http://www.law.upenn.edu/groups/jlasc/Legality_of_White_Phosphorus_Article_Publication.doc
| Quote: |
And their use was not "Republican." Or even "conservative."
Metaphysically? You're probably right. But just you raise the question
of
the use of those weapons in this instance, and see which side of the
aisle
supports or objects to their use.
Immaterial, of course.
|
Absolutely not. Not when addressing the question of bias in media coverage.
| Quote: |
And the one
that lets the Democratic Congress get excoriated for challenges to
Pelosi's
leadership and questionable items in their military spending bill,
without
pointing out that such things were well-precedented in the Republican
Congress.
The Gops refused to debate Operation: Allied Force after it had begun.
"Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult speech for me to give, because I
normally, and I still do, support our military and the fine work that
they
are doing. But I cannot support a failed foreign policy. . But before we
get
deeper embroiled into this Balkan quagmire, I think that an assessment
has
to be made of the Kosovo policy so far. President Clinton has never
explained to the American people why he was involving the U.S. military
in a
civil war in a sovereign nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian
reasons, a new military/foreign policy precedent. . Was it worth it to
stay
in Vietnam to save face? What good has been accomplished so far?
Absolutely
nothing."
Tom Delay (R-TX), 4/28/99
I'm not a shill for the Gops. If you'll notice, I said above that given
the right circumstances, the Gops are just like the Dems. And they are.
But it turns out the Gops gave Clinton more funding than he was asking
for to prosecute Operation: Allied Force. He asked for $6 billion and
they gave him $11 billion.
|
You said the Repubs didn't debate O:AF after it began, but they did. Also,
the Dems just gave Bush more funding than he asked for, without binding
deadlines.
| Quote: |
In the balance of the media, there definitely is no right leaning bias,
and there is even more definitely no bias towards this administration.
FoxNews, Newmax, and a handful of others hardly match the opposite
leaning bias.
Every scrap of information that has come out of the White House has
been
subjected to extraordinary skepticism, perhaps far beyond what might be
considered healthy.
You can say that if you like. I've cited my examples of media showing a
bias toward the right. I don't claim at all that the media consistently
leans to the right, but nor does it do so to the left.
Yes, it very much leans to the left. By every measure imaginable. From
polls of journalists about their political leanings, to their admitted
party affiliations.
|
There hasn't been a comprehensive poll of journalists on their political
leanings, and that is less relevant than the reporting they actually
produce. Surveying that reporting can be exhausting, and I don't think
there is an objective standard by which to consider all of the examples of
left-leaning and right-leaning bias and conclude that the media as a whole
leans either left or right.
| Quote: |
The New York Times carried the Abu Ghraib story on its front page for 32
days in a row. Later it was documented to be 43 front page stories in 47
days.
LA times carried it front page for 28 days in a row, and the Chicago
Tribune, 27.
The Times and the Boston Globe used the stories to call for the
resignation of Rumsfeld.
In a rational, evenly balanced environment, Abu Ghraib would have been
worth a few front page stories at most
|
Fallacy of the Biased Sample.
| Quote: |
The Democrats and other
left-wingers need to get a better leash. Partisan tug-of-war doesn't
necessarily benefit the American people, but it's better than
single-party
dominance over the debate.
There's never been such, silly. The Gops aren't nearly as disciplined
as
the Dems, and the Dems ain't perfect--even today.
The GOP has a good media machine. Read stuff by David Brock.
David Brock? You're not kidding, are you?
|
What are your primary reasons for rejecting his statements?
_invertebrate_ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Neolibertarian
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 10:46 am Post subject: Re: American Malaise |
|
|
In article <V0p%h.1698$rk5.450@trndny06>,
"_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:
| Quote: |
Congress was informed at every step--which is how/where the story of the
warrantless wiretaps was cracked in the first place.
==begin quote==
Your quote is an argument that the President has the power to do warrantless
searches, and not a conclusive one.
|
Executive Order 12949. William Clinton.
| Quote: |
It does not advance your claim that
Congress was informed.
|
The only thing that's not conclusive is the extent of his war powers.
That's a very complicated discussion, one I'm not willing to delve into
tonight.
Suffice it to notice, if you will, that the United States has not
declared war since 1941, and probably never will again. While Article 53
of the UN Charter may have something to do with this, it is also
important to note that the world may not survive another declaration of
war by the United States.
However, this unwillingness is not, has not, nor should it be a
stumbling block to America's ability to protect her interests
militarily. There can, after all, logically be a graduated state of war,
and congress can agree to trigger war powers without a formal
declaration.
And the world NEEDS the United States to have a graduated structure for
her state of war, for the emergencies she has faced, and will surely
face in the future.
| Quote: |
Who was the suspected terrorism financier who had his Mississippi home
searched? I can't find him.
|
The records are sealed, AFAIK.
Keep away from Media Matters for a while would ya? You evidently need to
be deprogrammed.
"The White House has said it informed congressional leaders about the
NSA program in more than a dozen briefings, but has refused to provide
further details. At a minimum, the briefings included the chairmen of
the House and Senate intelligence oversight committees and the two
ranking Democrats, known collectively as the "Gang of Four," according
to various sources.
"We believe that Congress was appropriately briefed," White House
spokeswoman Dana Perino said in a statement last night."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011
802158.html
If the Dems in Congress wished to clear up the matter, they could have
done so over a year and a half ago. No one is doing so because there are
many other national security issues involved. Which the Dems are well
aware.
They've got him over a barrel.
The idea is to attack every weakness, and to subject the nation to
pointless inquiries and official investigations.
If you haven't figured this out by now...
| Quote: |
Were all the right people
informed? Were they fully informed? What legal standard is there for the
administration to meet that allows them to forgo warrants?
|
What you're asking is: Is the United States at war, or not?
| Quote: |
Let's take a look at the secrecy of the Carter administration for a
moment. His was a particularly "open and honest" administration, or so
he and many have claimed.
There's many examples that would work, but this one is particularly
shocking:
==Begin Quote==
[snip]
==End Quote==
---Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski
Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
The difference between Carter and Bush is that secrets such as this,
which completely undermine administration policy positions, is that
Carter's secrets were kept until long past a time they mattered.
Have you done a full unbiased analysis of the use of secrecy by Bush and by
Carter? I haven't, but I suspect you haven't either. If you have,
summarize your conclusions in some detail.
|
You won't know what secrets have been held and used in this
administration for about 20 years or so.
It can't be any other way.
It's ludicrous that so many /think/ they know, just because of what they
read in frankly Democratic Party organs, i.e., the New York Times and
Washington Post.
You're purposely ignoring what I posted above. The only thing that can
compare to what James Carter purposely did in 1979, would be if Bush
wired the World Trade Centers, or knew ahead of time that Mohammed Atta
was planning Operation: Satan is Burning, and allowed it to happen.
All of which he's been accused of...without any substantive evidence
whatsoever. In fact, there's hardly any circumstantial evidence, either.
| Quote: |
that ignores questions of legality regarding our tactics in Iraq (like
our
attack on Fallujah),
There was no legal obstacle to attacking Fallujah. If you're referring
to the use of incendiaries, you're sadly mistaken if you think these
were "illegal."
You are entitled to believe it is legal to violate UN conventions, but
violations are a valid subject for media scrutiny.
No ratified UN conventions were violated. Period.
I guess they're not UN conventions. The article below argues that the
Fallujah attack was a "violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention,
Protocol III to the Convention on Conventional Weapons and international
humanitarian law." I haven't managed to work my way through the whole
thing.
http://www.law.upenn.edu/groups/jlasc/Legality_of_White_Phosphorus_Article_Pub
lication.doc
|
The United States is not a signatory to conventions restricting use of
incendiaries. We could have used /napalm/ legally had we wished to--just
so long as it wasn't used against non-combatants.
But, the United States goes to extraordinary lengths not to target
non-combatants, despite what her accusers often claim. I happen to know
a guy who was on the targeting analysis team for the first Gulf War.
Their mission and their dedication are beyond question.
They have sleepless nights years later when they make the inevitable
mistakes, or in the case of that war, they are misled by the enemy into
making mistakes.
| Quote: |
And their use was not "Republican." Or even "conservative."
Metaphysically? You're probably right. But just you raise the question
of
the use of those weapons in this instance, and see which side of the
aisle
supports or objects to their use.
Immaterial, of course.
Absolutely not. Not when addressing the question of bias in media coverage.
|
There IS no question about media bias.
| Quote: |
And the one
that lets the Democratic Congress get excoriated for challenges to
Pelosi's
leadership and questionable items in their military spending bill,
without
pointing out that such things were well-precedented in the Republican
Congress.
The Gops refused to debate Operation: Allied Force after it had begun.
"Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult speech for me to give, because I
normally, and I still do, support our military and the fine work that
they
are doing. But I cannot support a failed foreign policy. . But before we
get
deeper embroiled into this Balkan quagmire, I think that an assessment
has
to be made of the Kosovo policy so far. President Clinton has never
explained to the American people why he was involving the U.S. military
in a
civil war in a sovereign nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian
reasons, a new military/foreign policy precedent. . Was it worth it to
stay
in Vietnam to save face? What good has been accomplished so far?
Absolutely
nothing."
Tom Delay (R-TX), 4/28/99
I'm not a shill for the Gops. If you'll notice, I said above that given
the right circumstances, the Gops are just like the Dems. And they are.
But it turns out the Gops gave Clinton more funding than he was asking
for to prosecute Operation: Allied Force. He asked for $6 billion and
they gave him $11 billion.
You said the Repubs didn't debate O:AF after it began, but they did.
|
Yes they did, you were definitely right, and I was wrong. The only thing
that mitigates my mistake, is that they showed how it could be fairly
constructive, and not destructive to the effort.
J.C. Watts did a very good job of making this case on McNeil Lehrer the
next evening.
I don't generally attempt to defend Republicans, because they're just
politicos, after all.
The Starr investigation of White Water is where all these Dem-initiated
investigations stem from. You understand that, don't you?
The Dems think that Starr was effective in destroying Clinton's
credibility.
However, the Dems seem to have forgotten the little detail that Starr
actually got some convictions /for the original crime that he was
investigating/.
They were also angry that the Gops weren't all on board Operation:
Allied Force in 1999.
| Quote: |
Also,
the Dems just gave Bush more funding than he asked for, without binding
deadlines.
|
Sorry, I meant more MILITARY funding. If I'm not mistaken, besides
subsidies and pork ($20 billion worth, IIRC), the minimum wage raise was
ALSO in that legislation you're referring to.
"Why, George Bush is not only a war monger, he vetoed support for
America's military at a time of crisis--and he even voted against poor
working people's chance at a living wage!"
(All in one bill.)
"He's politicizing this war!!!!"
| Quote: |
In the balance of the media, there definitely is no right leaning bias,
and there is even more definitely no bias towards this administration.
FoxNews, Newmax, and a handful of others hardly match the opposite
leaning bias.
Every scrap of information that has come out of the White House has
been
subjected to extraordinary skepticism, perhaps far beyond what might be
considered healthy.
You can say that if you like. I've cited my examples of media showing a
bias toward the right. I don't claim at all that the media consistently
leans to the right, but nor does it do so to the left.
Yes, it very much leans to the left. By every measure imaginable. From
polls of journalists about their political leanings, to their admitted
party affiliations.
There hasn't been a comprehensive poll of journalists on their political
leanings,
|
There have been many such comprehensive surveys, silly.
| Quote: |
and that is less relevant than the reporting they actually
produce.
|
No. In fact it explains almost all of their "reporting."
NOTE: you need to pay attention to what they DON'T report, as well as
what they do.
| Quote: |
Surveying that reporting can be exhausting, and I don't think
there is an objective standard by which to consider all of the examples of
left-leaning and right-leaning bias and conclude that the media as a whole
leans either left or right.
|
Yes, some surveys have attempted to prove no bias. These ask journalists
to place their political leanings as either Left, Center, or Right.
Of course they respond as being center.
However, when asked about specific issues which can place them left or
right in the spectrum, they're overwhelmingly on the left. They also
consistently show themselves to be about 2/3 Dem, and only about 1/4 Gop.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics.asp
Yes, the above is a conservative website (the surveys are out there on
other sites).
Dems seem willing to declare that FoxNews, Washington Times and WSJ to
be biased to the right. But they vehemently deny other media outlets
have any bias whatsoever.
Heh. No one claims "no bias!" more than the Grandfather of Left-leaning
Media Bias, Walter Cronkite.
But he's old and feeble, so why should we kick him now?
| Quote: |
The New York Times carried the Abu Ghraib story on its front page for 32
days in a row. Later it was documented to be 43 front page stories in 47
days.
LA times carried it front page for 28 days in a row, and the Chicago
Tribune, 27.
The Times and the Boston Globe used the stories to call for the
resignation of Rumsfeld.
In a rational, evenly balanced environment, Abu Ghraib would have been
worth a few front page stories at most
Fallacy of the Biased Sample.
|
No, it's not. It's merely explaining what would be rational coverage.
Perhaps it's speculation.
And perhaps it's not.
But it's certainly not the biased sample fallacy.
| Quote: |
The Democrats and other
left-wingers need to get a better leash. Partisan tug-of-war doesn't
necessarily benefit the American people, but it's better than
single-party
dominance over the debate.
There's never been such, silly. The Gops aren't nearly as disciplined
as
the Dems, and the Dems ain't perfect--even today.
The GOP has a good media machine. Read stuff by David Brock.
David Brock? You're not kidding, are you?
What are your primary reasons for rejecting his statements?
|
He's a sophist who found that his clients were turning against his
special interests, so he switched sides. He's still a sophist.
In his case, sophist = liar.
--
NeoLibertarian
"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."
---Will Rogers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Neolibertarian
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 10:56 am Post subject: Re: American Malaise |
|
|
In article <u3n%h.2531$Kz1.295@trndny09>,
"_invertebrate_" <_invertebrate_@wormhole.va> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Neolibertarian" <cognac756@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cognac756-1ABBA2.00261906052007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
The man sleeping in the White House tonight is the most physically fit
President in American history.
Hands down.
They just don't like to make much of a deal about it, since, you know,
he's not allowed to be popular anymore.
The left-wing media brings it up every now and then to mock him. More
commonly they just refer to him riding his bike during major emergencies.
I don't think his fitness really plays in his favor, politically. It is a
reminder how little time he spends doing his real job. He needs exercise
and other down time from Presidential work to just work away his anxiety at
the job he has to do.
The mainstream media might be doing him a small favor by ignoring how much
he exercises.
|
No, in fact they know very well what they're doing--and I can assure you
that it's no favor--nor would they ever consider doing him any.
The truth of the bias is often found in what they DON'T report.
Those of us who partake in rigorous exercise, understand how much better
the brain works when we do. It's quite startling, in fact.
The idea is that his brain doesn't work very well. Ford, Reagan and both
Bush's have had this paradigm used against them to varying degrees.
How old are you that you could doubt it?
| Quote: |
They had Dictators in the hey day of the Republic, too.
The state, itself, was the tyranny. As it always is.
Anarchist.
I'm a rational anarchist. |
--
NeoLibertarian
"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."
---Will Rogers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Gunner
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 12:37 pm Post subject: Re: American Malaise |
|
|
On Mon, 07 May 2007 05:46:13 GMT, Neolibertarian <cognac756@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Heh. No one claims "no bias!" more than the Grandfather of Left-leaning
Media Bias, Walter Cronkite.
But he's old and feeble, so why should we kick him now?
|
Because the sorry bastard cost us Vietnam..and the deaths of a half
million people.
Gunner
This Message is guaranteed environmentally friendly
Manufactured with 10% post consumer ASCII
Meets all EPA regulations for clean air
Using only naturally occuring fibers
Use the Message with confidance.
(Some settling may occure in transit.)
(Best if Used before May 13, 2009) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 7:37 pm Post subject: Re: American Malaise |
|
|
On Mon, 07 May 2007 05:46:13 GMT, Neolibertarian <cognac756@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Suffice it to notice, if you will, that the United States has not
declared war since 1941, and probably never will again.
|
The President better never declare war. It's a power invested by the
Constitution SOLELY in Congress.
-----
"Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the
power to make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
137 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
