Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe White House's battle with Fox News reached a new high on Sunday, when Communications Director Anita Dunn went on national television to blast Fox as a partisan organization that functions as an appendage to the Republican Party.
"Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party," Dunn told CNN, adding, "let's not pretend [Fox is] a news organization like CNN is." Dunn also took her beef to The New York Times, saying in a Sunday interview that Fox is "undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House [and] we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."
In the most significant exchange on CNN, Dunn stressed that President Obama now personally views Fox as a partisan opponent, rather than a journalistic organization. "When he goes on Fox he understands he is not going on it as a news network at this point," she explained, "he is going on it to debate the opposition."
That's a big departure from how most of the Democratic establishment engages Fox. It's been a long time coming.
While rank and file Democrats view Fox News as an obviously hostile force, elected Democrats have long struggled over whether to engage or fight the channel. In fact, the Democratic establishment even agreed to empower Fox as an official host and moderator of a debate during the presidential primaries -- but that bit of self-handicapping was scuttled after a coalition of progressive bloggers and activists objected. By the homestretch of the presidential campaign, Obama's campaign dialed up the heat, aggressively confronting Fox with pointed barbs from senior staff, surrogates and sometimes the candidate. (And who can forget Robert Gibbs turning the tables on Sean Hannity on Fox last October?)
When campaign mode ended, however, the Obama team initially struggled with how to counter Fox from inside the White House. There was a wave of Obama-resentment for Fox to ride -- and sometimes stoke off-camera -- and presidents typically stay above the fray of media criticism.
Dunn's new pressure is part of a larger "call em out" strategy, recently telegraphed in Time magazine, to attack lies as "lies" and treat Fox as a place for rough debate with opponents -- not journalistic exchanges. Gibbs says playing hardball will work, and he likens it to, well, hardball: "The only way to get somebody to stop crowding the plate is to throw a fastball at them. They move."
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
In my opinion, and we all know what those are worth...
I believe it is an inherently bad idea to get in an all out pissing match with an organization that has the number of viewers of Fox news.
The dems hold majorities in all three branches despite Fox news, which gives the opposition a place to vent, apparently to no avail.
Why stir an ants nest when they can use it as a rallying cry and actually start causing real problems.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/11/2009 @ 11:19pm
benchrest,
why should the whitehouse worry about what fox viewers think?
to intelligent people, it's obvious what fox news represents.
and this communications director merely told the truth.
i want more democrats playing hard ball, and making the right wing look like the wingnuts that they are.
Posted by darladoon at 10/11/2009 @ 11:26pm
White House fighting news outlets as if they were at war...? Fight the Taliban, not a TV show.
sounds a little Nixonian, to me.....but maybe the WH is afraid of something? Govts in the US usualy win or lose arguements with the American people..not news outlets...besides..MSNBC licks enough boots for the Dems that it alone should provide cover..except no one takes them serious any more...and no one watches...all the WH will do is increase Fox viewership...
The best way to defeat one enemies is to be successful....Obama has yet to be successful at anything, so, attack your critics is the next best distraction...I smell a one term and a footnote in history coming.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/11/2009 @ 11:35pm
As most know, I don't get Fox News at home.....strictly free, over-the-air in my HAPPY house!
That said, I am thrilled for FNC and congratulate Rupert Murdoch for having a network monopoly as the opposition channel.
Let the Left and the Kool-aid strung divide amongst the Legacy Media!
Is there anyone in the Magic Black House has any brain juice left? Have they forgotten what happened when they tried to elevate Rush to the Left's Public Enemy No. 1?
I'm looking forward to books a year to three years out that `tell-all' of how this magical presidency self-destructed.....or, purposefully sabotaged from within.
Posted by Happy at 10/11/2009 @ 11:43pm
Posted by darladoon at 10/11/2009 @ 11:26pm
That was kinda the attitude the GOP had when they were talking about "permanent majorities".
Look at them now after the public bitch slapped them back into the minority.
If you have a winning equation, why mess with it?
Posted by Benchrest at 10/11/2009 @ 11:46pm
Common sense tells us that Because Fox gets all the ratings , that means most people are watching. So if most people are watching Fox, shouldn't there be more progressive talking heads appearing as guests on O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck and Van Sustern to get their message out to the most people possible, especially independents?
Who's running the PR dept. at the WH who doesn't get this. Why aren't people being fired. hasn't anyone ever heard that you catch more bees with honey. All the most elequouent charmers that the left has, including the President himself should be booking every slot they can to bring their message to the independents. Let's face it, indies watch Fox. The show hosts like O'Reilly, Hannity, Van Sustern and Beck can ask any questions they want and the lackies from the left can try to answer. As least they'll be heard on Fox. They have no chance on MSNBC, CNN or PBS. It's time for a change in strategy from the WH because they are losing the PR battle big time.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 12:06am
and after all,
PR is the name of the game.
no wonder they gave mr. obama the piece prize.
a piece for lloyd
a piece for eddie
a piece for jamie...
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 12:20am
fox news is made for idiots!!! rebublicans are worthless incompetents who are bigots! They castrated themselves with blind support of criminals like rove, bush and cheney.... Now the party will never survive.
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 10/12/2009 @ 12:51am
"Common sense tells us that Because Fox gets all the ratings , that means most people are watching. So if most people are watching Fox, shouldn't there be more progressive talking heads appearing as guests on O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck and Van Sustern to get their message out to the most people possible, especially independen"
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 12:06am
Because common sense dictates that if you go on Fox News you aren't going to get your progressive message out. They are only interested in one thing and that is castigating anyone liberal. It's a channel notorious for hosts who shout down anyone who presents an iota of more intelligence than themselves. Rush and O'Reilly both are known for shouting down and cutting off the mics of people who they don't agree with. So why would you bother going on a news source who has no interest in actually representing your views and instead wants to try to use you as a punching bag.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/12/2009 @ 01:42am
kent brockman is my favourite fox news anchor.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 01:54am
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
As usual the Obamanation administration clearly demonstates it's total disrespect for the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and of the "press" and KVH and the nation sees no problem with that!
This administration has a policy of "perpetual campaigning" against any and all disent and the exercise of constitutional rights by any person, group of persons disenting against its policies or proposed legislation, or disenting media sourses and will not countence any opposition!
This white houses now even more closely resembles ideologically totalitarian, marxist, and socialist or even facist regimes known to supress the free expression of ideas and speech ! Funny how the blind guides of the left seeming lend it support and credulence? Now why is that?
Posted by BigPasture at 10/12/2009 @ 02:58am
Well DuNcE judging from the time of your post you must have gotten revved up reading the Ann Coulter fun line. I agree with other libs here,what is being accomplished by an out and out fight with Fox News. The conservatives have points made by the White House. It is ridiculous gamesmanship that is a waste of time and effort.
Posted by whatozz at 10/12/2009 @ 04:58am
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 12:06am
What ratings DOES Fox get, gunny?...compared to the broadcast networks?
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 07:12am
When I go into the break room at work, it's Fox News. When I go to the Doctors office the TV in the lobby is tuned to Fox News. Anywhere I go where their is a corporate presence, it's Fox News.
Fox News is the oligarchy's brain washing channel. Personally I just take it on one T.V. set at a time and change the channel. Sure, I get dirty looks from my boss and other koolaid addicted zombies but so what? I have yet to see one of those cowards change it back...
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 07:58am
When I move around the Twin Cities during the day Fox is on in all the business buildings in town. I laugh to myself but it has got have great ratings. Why ship cannonballs to Fox wrapped in ribbons. Where is the discipline in this White House? Where is Rahm,did he have to take over the tour guide gig from Harry on Lake Havasu? When are the leaks and the revolving messages going to stop. Let's live up to the campaign's "promise".
Posted by whatozz at 10/12/2009 @ 08:11am
in my HAPPY house! Posted by Happy at 10/11/2009 @ 11:43pm
Hey HAP! Why is it that I get the feeling that the only one HAPPY in your house is you?
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 08:16am
Republicans have been at war with the "Liberal" press for decades. It's "The Press" that needs to go to war with the Fox/Murdoch/Moonie Press.
If, instead of repeating their distortions and pretending it's news, they need to report them as propaganda from the extreme Right.
Boycott Fox!
Posted by thebob.bob at 10/12/2009 @ 08:18am
Fox is definitely an outlet of the Republican Party. Is it a news organization? Yes, but. News organizations are those which report the news either as they are, or as they get them from a new agency. On the other hand, Fox news serves like a republican kitchen where the news are trimmed and snipped of anything that might offend the republican ideology, and then they are seasoned and sauced with anything anti-democratic under the sun, and then served as the patriotic platter of news that everybody can feast and feel good about America. Fox news is the right news outlet for people with ideology mirroring the likes of George Armstrong Custer, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, John McCain, George Bush, and other such Neanderthals.
But, more importantly, is the attitude of some of the supposed reporters and commentators which exudes a flair of unrestrained bigotry. Their dismissive grin come across as fang showing; they behave as if their opinion is pure gold, and every opposing opinion is just scrap; they show contempt for any view that doesn't fit their thinking; they spice their counter-answers with derisive snippets, and they try to play hard the role of the snob in their interviews -even though their antics show their audience that they are actually slobs. But some audiences, like the one that applauded John McCain when he sang and danced on a stage "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" certainly love people with fangs, as they love McCain who is always ready to bomb anyone who doesn't bow to his and to Fox's idea of America. Nikos Retsos, retired professor
Posted by Nikos_Retsos at 10/12/2009 @ 08:35am
The White House wants to draw attention away from increasing criticism of Democrats by the progressive and alternative media. What better way to marginalize your opposition than characterizing them as the type of ignorant blowhards and outright liars appearing on FOX News? It's a win-win situation for all. FOX gets a badly needed ratings boost. The President gets to slap the face of the progressive press while avoiding any actual adversarial confrontation on issues of substance. I bet he even shows them his birth certificate.
Posted by sawbuck at 10/12/2009 @ 08:36am
It's "The Press" that needs to go to war with the Fox/Murdoch/Moonie Press. Posted by thebob.bob at 10/12/2009 @ 08:18am
The problem is that there is no "Free Press" in this country anymore. If you want to get any real news you have to go on the internet and read articles from news organizations in countries that still have one.
We in the U.S. are ranked 31st in freedom of expression at home and 135th as regards behaviour abroad. We do however rank above Israel who is 44th and 146th respectively.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 08:37am
I take it this war is going to involve members of the White House, who are paid salaries or hourly wages by American taxpayers, devoting time and effort (and our money, by default) to fighting a cable news channel?
If you consider politics to be theater and your own ideology is primarily as an outlet for expressing rage, then you might think this is a good way for the White House to spend the taxpayer's dollar.
I don't recall any of the previous administrations declaring "war" on a hostile press...other than just not asking Helen Thomas for her opinions cloaked as questions in press conferences.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/12/2009 @ 08:38am
I think this new strategy is a long time coming. Why have we always had to fantasize about Presidents with the balls to stand up to the media. Guys like Bullworth, President Andrew Sheppard (American President), or President Bartlett from the West Wing. We need politicians with brains, but also with charisma and passion, with the nuts to bite back. Fox is successful and you better damn well respect what its viewers think. They sell and package a product so well, their viewers believe the only devil is Barack Obama. That is powerful, and their following is massive. Who cares if they aren't intelligent. They vote. We need more BO's and fewer John Kerry's and Al Gore's in the Spot light. Fox is so successful because ignorant people are thirsty for charismatic leadership. They have been wandering in a desert, bereft of leadership. In the absence of such leadership, they will swallow even the most unpotable swill. I say CARPE JUGULUM!
Posted by quinndiesel at 10/12/2009 @ 08:47am
It's also interesting that the top 5 countries that rate highest in a "Free Press" are all those evil social democracies that Fox News viewers fear the most.
1. Finland 2. Iceland 3. Netherlands 4. Norway 5. Denmark
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 08:48am
I walked door to door for Obama in some of the most racist neighborhoods in Dayton. My gloves have been off for a a year and a half. I didn't go through that to watch him pull a John Kerry and sit by quietly while his reputation is trashed. Fox is a Swiftboating cell that operates year round, not just during elections. Its about effing time someone else took the gloves off and got their knuckles bloody. After what Fox has done to ACORN, and Van Jones, and countless other people. Its time to stand up, and knock some politcal heads.
Posted by quinndiesel at 10/12/2009 @ 08:51am
FOX gets a badly needed ratings boost.
Posted by sawbuck at 10/12/2009 @ 08:36am
How badly when one is leading?
In prime time slots, most ratings show FNC beats or almost equals all other major outlets (MSNBC, CNN, etc.) COMBINED!
YOU are the reason for FNC's success, congrats and Rupert thanks YOU!
Posted by Happy at 10/12/2009 @ 09:03am
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-finishes-fourth- in-prime-time-demo-for-fourth-straight-night/
CNN Finishes Fourth In Prime Time Demo For Fourth Straight Night
by Steve Krakauer | 12:49 pm, October 10th, 2009 » 1 comment
ratings
Cable news ratings, October 8, 2009: Check out the highlights, and see the full ratings below: • For the fourth consecutive night, CNN finished as the #4 cable news channel in the A25-54 demographic during prime time Thursday night. And this time it wasn't even very close. Fox News averaged 691,000, MSNBC 235,000, HLN 231,000 and CNN 151,000. CNN finished 3rd in total viewers during prime time, ahead of HLN....
Posted by Happy at 10/12/2009 @ 09:06am
quinndiesel
fox news did demonised and villified van jones but they did not get rid of him.the democrats wanted him out because he was not fit for their reactionay sewer of wall street banksters and thieves.
the democrats have the predsidency,the senate and the house and they blame fox news for their freagin failures.that is realy embarassing.
Posted by excalibur999 at 10/12/2009 @ 09:15am
Fox News averaged 691,000, MSNBC 235,000, HLN 231,000 and CNN 151,000. CNN finished 3rd in total viewers during prime time, ahead of HLN....
Posted by Happy at 10/12/2009 @ 09:06am |
Not surprising since every TV in every Corporate building all over the country is tuned to their brain ray 24/7.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 09:16am
Where I work it is Corporate policy to keep any TV tuned to Fox News. I change the channels daily. Only to find them switched back the next day by the nearest corporate lackey assigned to that duty.
It is unreal. I can never catch them doing it. Otherwise I would have a little talk with them alone.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 09:22am
I realize that the Democratic leadership has not gone to bat for guys like Van Jones. Thats why I'm excited to see someone finally stepping up. I'm tired of it being me. It needs to come from the guys we elected. He needs to have an Alan Sheppard moment. He needs the fire of Huey Long (albeit without some of the controversy)
Posted by quinndiesel at 10/12/2009 @ 09:30am
After what Fox has done to ACORN, and Van Jones, and countless other people. Its time to stand up, and knock some politcal heads.
Posted by quinndiesel at 10/12/2009 @ 08:51am
So who or what outfit should shine some needed lights on ACORN? Van Jones? "and countless other people" like Rev. Wright, John Murtha, Charlie Rangel, etc.?
Posted by Happy at 10/12/2009 @ 09:30am
Fear Based Politricks I have noticed that the Fox News network has been the organizer of the foxaholics nationwide. What I see in these organized rallies is a lot of KKK type advertising. The signs are not about healthcare. The confederate flag is waving everywhere. There are more confederate flags than there are United States of America flags. Blacks and Hispanics and every other non white person is supposed to feel inferior because someone who is white says they are better.The Fox News Political agenda is spreading hatred accross the nation. Hatred for the President firstly. The people here openly express their hatred for the first African American President. I know that the Media power of Fox news owned by the man Rupert Murdoch is the force uniting the foxaholics. Their agenda is to remove President Obama. Fear is the most powerful weapon that fox has. Fear unites in a very effective way. They want to see a divided nation where citizens are fighting in the streets. Fear causes people to do crazy things. This fear peddling has brought on a large number of murder suicides and lynchings. The fear generated by Fox News has caused Americans to buy 9 million rounds of ammunition. The Foxaholics are being steered by the Fox Political Network. The men and women of Fox News Political Network frequently use words like firestorm, outrage, staggering, controversial, socialism, big government, government takeover, and similar phrases. They are in their words taking America back. Back to where? They use their own faked latest poll results. They favor the Republican Party over the Democratic party. They want a white government, with white people running the country. A divided country cannot stand. A hate filled group of individuals are trying to disrupt our countries st
Posted by Terrysuggs at 10/12/2009 @ 09:42am
Have you notice not ONE of the right-wing bloggers has defended Fox as "fair and balanced"....their own claim??!??!?
Just "It gets big ratings!"...well, sure. If you're the primary news source for 20 million people...aka 15% of the entire country....20 million is a big number.
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 09:53am
....20 million is a big number.
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 09:53am
You need to get a handle on `Relativity'....clearly not your strong suit...but trust me, once you understand, you'll be a better (fill in the blank)!
Posted by Happy at 10/12/2009 @ 10:02am
Posted by Happy at 10/12/2009 @ 10:02am
Clearly simple mathematics, isn't yours, HAPP.
Unless you want to explain how the total number of people watching the networks and CNN and MSNBC combined is a "minority" and the total number of people that make up Fox viewership is a "majority"?
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 10:07am
Clearly simple mathematics, isn't yours, HAPP.
Unless you want to explain how the total number of people watching the networks and CNN and MSNBC combined is a "minority" and the total number of people that make up Fox viewership is a "majority"?
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 10:07am
IF your math is so powerful, why is the Black House concerned AT ALL? I mean, your math says that FNC is even less consequential than Rush, no?
Posted by Happy at 10/12/2009 @ 10:09am
Thank goodness for Communications Director Ms. Dunn, for calling-out The Propaganda Channel Formerly Known As Fox.
Fox is the Tokyo Rose of our times, and she needed to say it.
Posted by like-mind at 10/12/2009 @ 10:22am
Posted by Happy at 10/12/2009 @ 10:02am
Clearly simple mathematics, isn't yours, HAPP.
Unless you want to explain how the total number of people watching the networks and CNN and MSNBC combined is a "minority" and the total number of people that make up Fox viewership is a "majority"?
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 10:07am
That being the case, then why is the Admin so worried that they must declare war on a station(FOX) that clearly is in the ...minority?
Seems a little "whistling past the graveyard"?
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 10:23am
Obama has noticed Fox does not report the news? Yet Fox claims to be a news organization? When I am waiting in the Dr.'s office and other public places I am forced to watch this mouthpiece of the most extreme Republicans. I do not believe in either party, but the Republicans starting with Nixon have gone crazy. Two democrats were responsible Kennedy and Johnson and their civil rights movement. This drove the Dixiecrat's, Southern racist Democrats, to the Republican party. How can such stupid, insane, The correct term is "paranoid schizophrenic", influence this party to such a degree? Come on, I voted for Ike. Then Reagan, Our greatest President? As he was being sworn in he was giving aid and comfort to Iran. Remember those people in our embassy the Iranian's were holding. Because Reagan and Bush senior set up this exchange before the election this was treason. It has been downhill ever since.
Posted by BillWilliam at 10/12/2009 @ 10:34am
Because Reagan and Bush senior set up this exchange before the election this was treason. It has been downhill ever since.
Posted by BillWilliam at 10/12/2009 @ 10:34am
Did they use black helicopters?
Reagan told the Iranians, let them go or I will come and get them the first day I am in office...
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 10:42am
i'm not sure why melber considers this a "war" between the white house and fox news.
all the communications director did was point out the extremely obvious: that fox news channel is nothing more than the communications/research appendage of the republican party.
anyone with even the flimsiest shred of media studies intelligence knows this.
fox news has a long, documented history of smearing democrats, and let's not even get into how they treat liberals or progressives.
it's a station which serves the uneducated and undereducated segments of our society.
second, that someone here (bigpasture) claims that the white house is "disrespecting constitutional rights of freedom of speech"? excuse me? how?
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 10:53am
I watched Bill O'rielly and Jeraldo Rivera debate Obama's health care bill on Bill's show. Neither man would stop talking over each other. At the time I agreed with what Jeraldo was saying but thats besides the point. Here O'rielly is the host of the show not having enough respect for Jeraldo's position to allow him to talk. SO Jeraldo had to do the same thing to Bill. Thats Fox for you.
Posted by exrider1980 at 10/12/2009 @ 10:55am
"Reagan told the Iranians, let them go or I will come and get them the first day I am in office..."
hahahahahaha! reagan said HE would come and "get them"? no, no, no maasch. reagan meant SOMEONE ELSE would come get them. reagan was a feeble old man by 1980. he had other less fortunate people do his dirty work, and most of the time in secret.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 11:02am
Sounds like Fox has got under the president's skin. News organizations have always attacked the White House. President Obama must believe he is immune where other presidents were not. It is usually a ill advised to get in a spat with media heavy hitters. More prosiacally, it is a mistake to get into a pissing match with a skunk.
Posted by jsens at 10/12/2009 @ 11:05am
Hi YourJomamma, No they used the Israeli's. Do a little research and find out for yourself. The investigation after, by appointees of Reagan, found no crime. They have no explanation as to why we, and the F4 parts did come from American military supply depots, gave the parts to the Israeli's to give to the Iranians. The Israeli's are no fans of the Iranians. Yes Mr. Reagan's statement is humorous considering he set up the exchange to look like he was so tough. He preferred to attack such military powerhouses like Panama. Carter was smart enough to know the Iranian's wanted a "HOLEY WAR". Which is why he tried the failed covert attack. He did not know of the deal H. Bush and Reagan set up with the Iranian's so negotian would have been impossible. Like Obama, Carter was over his head with problems left over from the past, Vietnam, Ford and Nixon. Enormous debt, and corrupt policies. What a neat choice of screen name, Does it reflect your personality? You are Black arn't you?
Posted by BillWilliam at 10/12/2009 @ 11:06am
Fox Nooz is definitely THE propaganda channel in the US. They aren't the only one, but they command an alarmingly large audience. And, since critical thinking is a lost art, Fox feeds the alternative to critical thinking which is "let someone else tell me what my opinion should be" (aka junk food for the brain).
I'm not good at this stuff, but can SOMEONE please start a "ChangeTheChannel" movement? Like many other commenters here, I see Fox Nooz on every TV in every office/waiting area I go to.
Maybe one of the contributing writers here at The Nation can write an exposé. I have a lot of insights into how this widespread exposure affects people, but I am sure that more experienced investigative journalists can out-think me.
Let's GO!!!!!
Posted by AZartist at 10/12/2009 @ 11:14am
people have to understand, inluding howard kurtz and others who called this director's comments an "attack on fox news," that telling the truth is NOT an attack.
i challenge anyone to argue that fox news is not an appendage of the gop. good luck!
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 11:14am
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 10:23am
What worry, John? But don't treat them like a real news organization. I think they're being generous to keep them in the Press Pool....it'd be like taking Hannity on Air Force One on a state visit.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 10:42am |
BTW, What Would Reagan Do? about Iran...easy.
Sell them missiles and pour the money into a slush fund for drug runners.
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 11:20am
No they used the Israeli's
they used the Israeli's what?
brush up on your english, bub.
jomama black? hahahahaah
he's strictly white bread.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/12/2009 @ 11:24am
Fox should have their license lifted for the tea bagger stunt.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/12/2009 @ 11:26am
I thought HAPPY said that he didn't even read blog posts unless his name, 'HAPPY', was spelled out in all caps? This is clearly an important issue for him.
Go to the Fox news website. It's a lot like the National Enquirer. And somewhat like the Nazi spin machine. News for mean spirited people who want to piss on their neighbors head. And that's why it makes everybody so HAPPY! Haw!
Even more interesting is their radio coverage. The usage of just one word in the right place can turn a headline into a negative comment. And they keep the mind conditioning going by repeating 'Fair and Balanced' all the time. I say hurry up and start the revolution.
Posted by ficheye at 10/12/2009 @ 11:37am
he's strictly white bread.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/12/2009 @ 11:24am
I am almost as white as..JR..my skin to shades darker...:)
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 11:42am
I sometimes tune into Fox News for a few minutes. It is astounding but once I counted nine lies in less than 2 minutes. They were at the top of their game that day.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 12:08pm
Back in the 19th century the Barbizon school of painters included a man named Jean Francois Millet. He painted a very well known work of peasants toiling in a field, said to reflect Christian resignation & the dignity of work. It was entitled The Man with the Hoe.
In our day & age, maybe a contemporary could step forward to paint a scene, perhaps using the subject of Happy & a consort on one of his many biz/pleasure vacations. It could be called The Man with the 'Ho.
What an inspiration for Fox News viewers! Could be featured in a special "arts" program appealing to the repressed Victorian mores & vicarious thrill seeking of the upwardly mobile worshipful.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/12/2009 @ 12:09pm
Intelligent people don't listen to Fox News drivel, and know they spout nothing but Republican propoganda.Spread the word progressives, and tell people the truth about this. The S.O.P , (Spiteful Old Party) will soon become nothing but a regional party, has no new ideas, and no relevance to our time.
Posted by reinpfeiffer at 10/12/2009 @ 12:13pm
As most know, I don't get Fox News at home.....strictly free, over-the-air in my HAPPY house!
Posted by Happy at 10/11/2009 @ 11:43pm
Me too.
I have yet to pay for television. Rabbit ears only in this domain. In that regard, I am a cheapo and fully admit it!
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/12/2009 @ 12:16pm
FOX is, on the "news" side, shall we say, an organ of the Republican Party.
I see no reason for POTUS to emphasize that.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/12/2009 @ 12:20pm
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/12/2009 @ 12:16pm
Sorry if I peg you wrongly. And at the risk of generalizing most wingers are tight assed selfish money grubbing sourgrapes. Unles of course it comes to corporate welfare.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 12:22pm
I am much more troubled by NBC being owned by a MAJOR defence contractor (GE) who uses its media arm (NBC) without regard to profits (ratings) in order to garner government contracts specically for profits. I didn't like Haliburton's influence on the Bush administration, but I think this GE thing is much more dangerous than that. Fox is just freedom of the press, pure and simple. They get ratings because conservatives are more engaged in daily discourse. The same reason CSPAN had to separate Dem, Rep, and Ind., phone calls on call-in shows. Republicans were calling CSPAN call-in shows at about 80% of all calls.
Posted by Ron2009 at 10/12/2009 @ 12:22pm
Cool! I hate to get all tingly, but could Obama be growing a spine? Will he stand up to the banksters, the pentagon, the MIC, Netanyahoo and the zionists? It ain't much and it's probably all for show, but hey, I'll give OBAMA the benefit of the doubt, for now.
Posted by DejaVu at 10/12/2009 @ 12:27pm
As most know, I don't get Fox News at home.....strictly free, over-the-air in my HAPPY house!
Posted by Happy at 10/11/2009 @ 11:43pm
Me too.
I have yet to pay for television. Rabbit ears only in this domain. In that regard, I am a cheapo and fully admit it!
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/12/2009 @ 12:16pm
What about internet? Isn't cable tied to your internet service provider? Mine is...
I was trying to quit cable , but then I won the ticket lottery to buy tickets for the Rockies playoffs...the tickets were very expensive, bad seats, and cold weather...I had to buy 4 seats for 3 games....I took the money and bought an HD TV for less...now I am hooked on FXNFL Red Zone...plus the baseball games.
My costs went up instead of down.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 12:28pm
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/12/2009 @ 12:16pm Sorry if I peg you wrongly. And at the risk of generalizing most wingers are tight assed selfish money grubbing sourgrapes. Unles of course it comes to corporate welfare. Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 12:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Basically, cable just doesn't offer enough for me. I'm not really home enough to take in those many channels, and a lot of that stuff is pretty mundane (the "filler" channels of home shopping, etc.). Don't feed the beast!
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/12/2009 @ 12:29pm
Most lefties are good Patriotic Americans and spend just about every penny they earn, thus stimulating the economy and the job market.
We have enough sense to know that we can't take it with us. So we do the right thing and spend it. If we run out we can always steal from the rich bastards.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 12:30pm
FOX gave us the Moon Hoax. Enough said! We all know FOX is a news hoax, so why should the administration treat them as anything but that? It's like asking the Obama administration or any administration to engage the National Enquirer.
Posted by raaustin at 10/12/2009 @ 12:31pm
My costs went up instead of down. Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 12:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Nah. I use the public library for internet. Working afternoons for many years, I plunk down there during the day and do my paperwork, etc. You know, communal atmosphere and all. I figure I am paying for it already, may as well use it.
(I really am a hardcore cheapo).
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/12/2009 @ 12:35pm
Basically, cable just doesn't offer enough for me. I'm not really home enough to take in those many channels, and a lot of that stuff is pretty mundane (the "filler" channels of home shopping, etc.). Don't feed the beast!Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/12/2009 @ 12:29pm
I'm hardly ever home either. But I like to watch movies. Direct TV loves me as I have all the premium channels and the highest tier they offer. It's only about $30 a week. If I can't afford a measly 30 bucks a week, why am I working?
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 12:36pm
Most lefties are good Patriotic Americans and spend just about every penny they earn, thus stimulating the economy and the job market.
We have enough sense to know that we can't take it with us. So we do the right thing and spend it. If we run out we can always steal from the rich bastards.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 12:30pm
You "good Patriotic types" are the ones who confused earning your own and staying with in your abilitys and limits ....and stealing from those who do...
you said it..you "spend everything your earn"...but you don't stop there...you think you are entitled to spend what others earn and you spend more than that,too..so when those of us don't want to have you spend our money, you blame..us. I think you have inhaled too much diesel dust.
You are many things, but Patriotic ain't one of them...but a simple thief.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 12:36pm
The funny thing about FOX News is that they play actual video clips..... all the things the admin is saying or HAS said for FOX to present a point. From years back, we get to hear from the people who make up this administration saying all the wrong things. Van Johnson (now gone), the FTC, the FCC....FOX is showing us history of who is where in this admin and where they are trying to lead us ......and it doesn't sound very American....telling insurance companies to "keep quiet", no more news letters to your clients. I'm in this for the long run :) signed.... concerned. Please note ...those who resort to calling people names, rather than addressing the issue...loose credibility and should be passed up in the reading. This does NOTHING to work towards a solution.
Posted by tkoprojoe at 10/12/2009 @ 12:39pm
"You are many things, but Patriotic ain't one of them...but a simple thief."
ah, but when your wall street friends fuck up the economy, it's a-ok to transfer our heard-earned dollars to their coffers to cover their losses.
and technically, raising taxes, if approved by our democratically-elected legislatures, is not "theft."
if you consider that theft, then you should live somewhere like zimbabwe.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 12:43pm
staying with in your abilitys
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 12:36pm
like a cage.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 12:47pm
You are many things, but Patriotic ain't one of them...but a simple thief.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 12:36pm
The post you referred to was more than a little tongue in cheek. But then I forget that you cretins lack a sense of humor.
Point of fact is, I have never stolen anything. I tried to steal a candy bar when I was 8 years old, but I took it back and apologized to the storekeeper.
You would love to think me a thief. But in reality it is the likes of you that would be much more likely to steal another blind and use the law to do it.
So why don't you just STFU?
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 12:49pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 12:36pm
Your presence is always a boon for the sewer rotor people. Alone, you've been responsible for more "out of order" signs than any living person. Keep up the good work.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/12/2009 @ 12:50pm
"You are many things, but Patriotic ain't one of them...but a simple thief."
ah, but when your wall street friends fuck up the economy, it's a-ok to transfer our heard-earned dollars to their coffers to cover their losses.
and technically, raising taxes, if approved by our democratically-elected legislatures, is not "theft."
if you consider that theft, then you should live somewhere like zimbabwe.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 12:43pm
Wall Street are not my friends...I wouldn't have given them or GM a dime.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 12:54pm
john maasch:
a thought......
does your pipeline gizmo that you sell to the chinese have any military applications?
lotsa pipes in nuclear plants...
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 12:54pm
staying with in your abilitys
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 12:36pm
like a cage.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 12:47pm
It called knowing your limits and being responsible.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 12:55pm
You are many things, but Patriotic ain't one of them...but a simple thief.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 12:36pm
The post you referred to was more than a little tongue in cheek. But then I forget that you cretins lack a sense of humor.
Point of fact is, I have never stolen anything. I tried to steal a candy bar when I was 8 years old, but I took it back and apologized to the storekeeper.
You would love to think me a thief. But in reality it is the likes of you that would be much more likely to steal another blind and use the law to do it.
So why don't you just STFU?
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 12:49pm
Like using the govt to confiscatory tax rates?
Like handing out $3,000 "stimulus" checks in Detroit?
When my money is demanded and stolen I will never "STFU"..it unamerican to be told to "STFU" by another American, even tho you know him to be the fool.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 12:57pm
john maasch:
a thought......
does your pipeline gizmo that you sell to the chinese have any military applications?
lotsa pipes in nuclear plants...
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 12:54pm
No. Is similar to the ultra sound a pregnant woman receives. We had to go through the State dept, Commerce department and the Homeland Security for examination. We investigate the obstructions, blockages, MIC related corrosion, wall thickness changes and Ice blockages in fire supression, cooling systems and food processing systems,wet or dry, using non invasive technology.
The type of technology you might be thinking of was OKed for a Clinton donor ,a company called Loral, which gave the Chinese the ability to encrypt the telemetry from their missles so we couldn't read it...and thus advancing Chinese rocketry 50 years including guidance systyem up grades..
but thats OK, Bill and ALGORE got big campaign and library contributions.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 1:06pm
A disagreement between the administration and a media organization is common since George Washington's presidency. The current administration has a larger ego and fewer accomplishments then most so they attack the only large electronic media source that isn't already part of the DNC propaganda network. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Los Angles Times, Washington Compost, Time, Newsweek have all provided massive positive coverage of "his Ego" and have provided cover and distractions and false statements for his many errors. CNN and MSMBC are in competition to be the Obama news agency, the competition within the propaganda media has been fierce for the past 18 months or so this is just the semi-finals. They have been Obama's enablers. Ms. Obermann will be greatly disappointed if the white house picks CNN, and the tears will flow. CNN is the better choice for Obama they have vast experience after being the Clinton network for 8 years, and the Obama administration needs any experience they can find.
Posted by John53 at 10/12/2009 @ 1:06pm
Like using the govt to confiscatory tax rates?
Like handing out $3,000 "stimulus" checks in Detroit?
When my money is demanded and stolen I will never "STFU"..it unamerican to be told to "STFU" by another American, even tho you know him to be the fool.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 12:57pm
I see your posts here. And you don't seem to have a problem with the Military spending 51% of your tax dollars on worldwide Imperialism and Death. But you get your panties all in a bunch when any of your tax dollars go to help another fellow citizen.
Why is that? Until you can explain that it would be in your best interest to "STFU". Otherwise it's like walking around with a sign around your neck that says "I'm a Moron".
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 1:10pm
"...from the people who make up this administration saying all the wrong things. Van Johnson (now gone)..."---Posted by tkoprojoe at 10/12/2009 @ 12:39pm
Yes, this IS a typical Fox News fan.
For he's thinking the movie star of "The Caine Mutiny" and "Brigadoon" was in the Obama Administration. Although he is "gone"...as he died last December.
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 1:21pm
Why is that? Until you can explain that it would be in your best interest to "STFU". Otherwise it's like walking around with a sign around your neck that says "I'm a Moron".
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 1:10pm
First off, the military does not spend 51% of my tax dollars... during Eisenhower years the numbers have effective reversed from 30% domestic 70% military to 70% domestic 30% military...much of pentagon budget is..pensions...
Secondly, Obama is spending 190% of the budget in just 8 months REGARDLESS of the fact it will produce ZERO growth, just a temorary boost, say building a bridge, and when bridge is built, the jobs go away..nothing lasting.
That type of "planned growth" advisor needs to wear the sign "MORON" and so should the clod who hired him..)you).
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 1:21pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 1:21pm
The figure probably comes from non-entitlement spending, Maasch.
Though given nobody will dare touch Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid...not much chance your "Cut Big Gov't" thinking will ever be implemented anymore than the "Turn the Pentagon into public housing" hippie one.
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 1:23pm
"it will produce ZERO growth, just a temorary boost, say building a bridge, and when bridge is built, the jobs go away..nothing lasting."
except of course......the bridge.
but maasch doesn't need bridges, he lives where they don't need 'em.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 1:25pm
The figure probably comes from non-entitlement spending, Maasch.
Though given nobody will dare touch Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid...not much chance your "Cut Big Gov't" thinking will ever be implemented anymore than the "Turn the Pentagon into public housing" hippie one.
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 1:23pm
Agreed.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 1:30pm
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 1:10pm
You have to remember that Jomamma is of the creative accounting school of bookkeeping. He likes to call the Iraq war an off-budget expense. That way, he can pretend that the military expense is limited to current year budget numbers, and he doesn't have to account for previous deficit spending that funded Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I, Afghanistan, Iraq II and all the smaller little adventures in between.
Then, when he finishes raiding the Medicare surplus and funded it with worthless government IOUs, he can also take aim at social programs that enable people to give him the finger rather than work for slave wages like his Chinese employees.
To him, this is all "good business". It may be - for him. But, for the country it is devastating. So, the minute that he - and others like him -take their ill-earned loot to some tropical island and stop being a parasite, the better off our nation will be.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/12/2009 @ 1:35pm
First off, the military does not spend 51% of my tax dollars... during Eisenhower years the numbers have effective reversed from 30% domestic 70% military to 70% domestic 30% military...much of pentagon budget is..pensions... Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 1:21pm
Another outright lie. For the fiscal year 2009 total military spending was 54% of total outlays (Federal Funds). 36% for current military, 18% for past military. Current military includes $200 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.
So now you are a liar aswell as a moron. Wouldn't it be better to quit while you are behind?
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 1:35pm
"it will produce ZERO growth, just a temorary boost, say building a bridge, and when bridge is built, the jobs go away..nothing lasting."
except of course......the bridge.
but maasch doesn't need bridges, he lives where they don't need 'em.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 1:25pm
The goal DARLAOOOOOON,is jobs...lasting jobs..that the promise...not a new bridge or even a repaired bridge...
A bridge, new or repaired, can be built faster and cheaper by the private sector than it can with a govt one.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 1:38pm
like talking to a bowl of jell-o....
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 1:38pm
Another outright lie. For the fiscal year 2009 total military spending was 54% of total outlays (Federal Funds). 36% for current military, 18% for past military. Current military includes $200 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.
So now you are a liar aswell as a moron. Wouldn't it be better to quit while you are behind?
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 1:35pm
Sorry comrade, you are wrong,... but I refuse to argue with a communist truck driver on anything economical other than how many hours you have in hauling paper spam and the cost of diesel.
You should leave other peoples TVs alone. It is rude and arrogant of you to push your crap in others places of business, since they pay the bills there...just drop off your ads and move on.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 1:42pm
like talking to a bowl of jell-o...
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 1:43pm
"The goal DARLAOOOOOON,is jobs...lasting jobs..that the promise...not a new bridge or even a repaired bridge... A bridge, new or repaired, can be built faster and cheaper by the private sector than it can with a govt one."
maasch, you claimed: "nothing lasting"
and i responded: "except, of course, the bridge"
clearly, i was right, and you were (again) wrong.
btw, can you give us evidence of government employees building bridges? as opposed to, say, the government contracting private companies to build bridges for public use?
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 1:45pm
That leaves 30% for Human Resources (bad term, Human Resources makes us all sound like minerals) 11% General Government and 5% for physical resources.
Just think what kind of society we could have if we only spent like 20% on the military. After all, all we really need is a strong National Guard and Coast Guard. 20% could give us the best damn well equipped National Guard and Coast Guard the world has ever seen. And then we could use another 34% for Domestic Spending like free education, health care, public works, high speed rail and a bunch of other stuff to benefit the people who live here.
But NOOO.. Assholes like YourJomamma and most of the Politicians in Washington are just very happy with the status quo. Which is abusing the people they were elected to represent or swallowing the lies of their corporate masters.
What a wonderfull world..
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 1:47pm
Then, when he finishes raiding the Medicare surplus and funded it with worthless government IOUs, he can also take aim at social programs that enable people to give him the finger rather than work for slave wages like his Chinese employees.
To him, this is all "good business". It may be - for him. But, for the country it is devastating. So, the minute that he - and others like him -take their ill-earned loot to some tropical island and stop being a parasite, the better off our nation will be.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/12/2009 @ 1:35pm
Your boys, the Dems,the Congress, that spend more than they take in..its in their DNA.
I am the one who advocates a war tax on EVERYONE until the war is over. Period. EVRYONE, including anyone and everyone who get any check from govt.
The rest of your post is just partisan jibberish and is easily dismissed.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 1:48pm
I think it's only right to expose FOX for what they are. Don't forget that countless young people really believe it's a news organization with a "fair and balanced view." I have been to many homes, with families often of modest means, where Fox is the only channel watched for news. To underestimate the power of their spinning machine is being hopelessly naive.
Posted by Pscle at 10/12/2009 @ 1:49pm
hey everyone, maasch thinks that bridges built by private sector won't last......IF.....the government pays for it.
but bridges built and paid for "cheaper and faster" (nevermind if they are "better" or not) by the private sector will, of course, last.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 1:50pm
Agreed.----Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 1:30pm
You're agreeing with me that your political ideology will NEVER be implemented, John?!?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 1:53pm
Then, when he finishes raiding the Medicare surplus Posted by srjenkins at 10/12/2009 @ 1:35pm
whaaaat? there is no medicare surplus, there is a social security surplus. pay better attention.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/12/2009 @ 1:54pm
"Your boys, the Dems,the Congress, that spend more than they take in..its in their DNA."
reagan, bush 1 and bush 2 all spent WAY more than they took in, so clearly, you're wrong.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 1:56pm
We could live in a virtual paradise. But instead we live in a virtual Hell. And all because about 30% of us are too damn stupid and ignorant to know what is good for them and about 5% who laugh all the way to the bank with their ill gotten gains.
Isn't self defense a right? If someone is trying to kill you or your family isn't it your right to stop them? Hmmmm...
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 1:59pm
btw, can you give us evidence of government employees building bridges? as opposed to, say, the government contracting private companies to build bridges for public use?
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 1:45pm
On interstate 494 western Minneapolis , a bridge was built over the interstate called Carlson drive...build by Curt Carlson in a well publicised event where the state put up a bid and a time table and he put up one out of his own(company proceeds).....the unions screamed..and then were humiliated, and the good legislaters they owned, put him out of the building business...not that he wanted to be in it, that wasn't the point...he needed the bridge to connect 2 towers he had built with the main roads and the state told him couldn't be done, no money, wait years...so, he did it himself. It was great PR talked about for years..my buddies had offices in his buildings..we used to watch the bridge..people drove from all over and the TV stations covered it project..it was great!!
He shamed them...by years and number of dollars... and was never allowed to build a bridge again...his bridge is over engineered and will out last the other bridges in the same road.
After the earth quakes in Oakland, in order to expidite rebuilding, the state waved many regulations and work rules to get the highways rebuilt...a band of private companies were paid bonus to get the rebuilding done based on early time tables..even the unions got out of the way(and were handsomely paid off)...
there was a 60 minutes on the effort...
The repairs on the Golden Gate bridge going on today...the repairs on a small section..cost more and will take longer than the entire project to build the bridge did...when men used slide rules...
YOU look it up...you live there.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 1:59pm
Resolved that all of conservative middle america are a lower form of life animated only by racism. What rights, if any, should people like that have?
Serious question. We severely limit the rights of criminals, so why not the bloodsucking cretins, are they not criminal? Did they not support the genocidal BusHitler?
Clearly they should not be allowed a "news" network, their own version of MSNBC, so freedom of press is out. Speech would logically follow.
Now, what if they demand these rights, should they be jailed? What treatment should they receive in jail? Should they be tortured, raped? Rape is forgiveable in certain circumstances against certain children.
If they resist their jailers should they be put down, possibly with carbon dioxide? They do love carbon.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 2:00pm
You're agreeing with me that your political ideology will NEVER be implemented, John?!?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 1:53pm
I agree that ... ,"nobody will dare touch Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid...not much chance your "Cut Big Gov't" thinking will ever be implemented anymore than the "Turn the Pentagon into public housing" hippie one. "
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 2:02pm
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 1:59pm
You're right. You and your family are in imminent danger unless you start killing people you disagree with.
Start here. 158-07 115 Rd. Jamaica, NY 11434. Come get me. Have a "talk" with me alone.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 2:02pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 1:59pm
I don't think anyone here is saying there isn't a lot of waste, fraud and abuse in Government. But at least in a working Democracy we have some say in that. In a Fascist Corporotocracy we have no say whatsoever.
I will take the Government over the Corporation any day.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 2:05pm
I will take the Government over the Corporation any day.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 2:05pm
I'm sure you will..complete with a spiffy new uniform...
I opt for neither..I never would consider working for govt nor a large corporation..
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 2:07pm
Start here. 158-07 115 Rd. Jamaica, NY 11434. Come get me. Have a "talk" with me alone.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 2:02pm
I was talking about self-defense not assault. And in any case, anyone stupid enough to give out their address on the internet should probably be seeking mental health assistance. Or at the least be reported to local authorities and child welfare. (If you have any).
The likes of you demonstrates my point exactly.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 2:12pm
Obviously, I meant Social Security, since Medicare accounting was revised in 2001 off the trust accounting model. If it were still using the trust model, it would have a surplus.
Thanks for making this clear.
http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/ facing-facts/what-medicare-surplus
Posted by srjenkins at 10/12/2009 @ 2:14pm
I opt for neither..I never would consider working for govt nor a large corporation..
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 2:07pm
But you already are working for the Government by paying taxes. And you are already working for a Corporation. You claim to sell some sort of Gizmo to the Peoples Republic of China, do you not?
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 2:16pm
158-07 115 Rd. Jamaica, NY 11434
•• is the red van yours?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 2:25pm
Who is trying to kill you chaoszen? Is it the evil, racist, cretins who sould not be allowed freedom of press or speech?
Clearly you need some cathartic violence. Read Fanon?
I'm just giving you a place to start. I survived Iraq so please spare me the pearl-clutching shock over how crazy it is to put my address up. The bloodlust of the Left is only matched by its cowardice.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 2:25pm
I'm sure you will..complete with a spiffy new uniform... Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 2:07pm
And by the way. I don't wear a uniform, so I doubt I would need a new one. I wear street clothes to work and dress the way I please. I would assume that you wear clothes that are appropriate to your business and are probably closer to wearing a uniform than I have ever been.
But I digress..
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 2:26pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 2:25pm
No. Neighbors.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 2:26pm
Rush and O'Reilly both are known for shouting down and cutting off the mics of people who they don't agree with. So why would you bother going on a news source who has no interest in actually representing your views and instead wants to try to use you as a punching bag.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/12/2009 @ 01:42am
When did Rush get a program on Fox?
This is such a useless debate.
Evidently Fox is popular with many Americans (I don't watch it) and seems to favor Republicans based upon the comments here.
But MSNBC should be called the Obama/Democratic party network. They just have a smaller viewership.
So who cares about either network. let's move on to things that matter.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 2:36pm
"The bloodlust of the Left is only matched by its cowardice"
yeah, right. conservatives have been pushing for more and more wars, yet so few of them ever fought. bolton, bush, rove, cheney, et al. all cowards.
give us some examples of lefties seeking blood?
most lefties are far too timid of blood to seek it.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 2:37pm
But you already are working for the Government by paying taxes. And you are already working for a Corporation. You claim to sell some sort of Gizmo to the Peoples Republic of China, do you not?
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 2:16pm
I agree with you to a point..I do pay taxes..therfore I am in involuntary servitude...ie..no choice..I have a silent partner who puts in nothing , makes all the rules,but takes out single largest piece.
As for corporations..I am part owner of a corporation(8 of us) that contracts out to engineers to build the system we sell to China, and we have our own sales people to make the sales for the service here plus we have our 4 guys who go out and take the scans on the premisies here. The guys who scan make as much as the engeneers who build the system. I am in charge of selling the equipment to China, as well as large service account develoment here,...the Chinese will set up their own service centers across China...
BTW, all of these people were unemployed, some from deep 6 figure jobs, but now have no income for months and some a year or more...houses up for sale..the whole 9 yards...the main owner and founder met all these guys at his church in a group that formed to help each other find jobs..we do make payrol;l.
I am, also a sub-chapter S corp for my jewelery business and a sole propietership for my web site...
I also sweep out the place and am the last guy paid...if there is any money left...we have no financing and as a result, no debt, which is good, but it also keeps us from growing..we have to wait to get more sales and therefore revenues, with profit, in order to pay for videos to use to sell to China...ect....it takes time.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 2:39pm
pearl-clutching shock Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 2:25pm
What exactly is "pearl-clutching shock", never heard that one.
As far as "cathartic violence" goes I'm not sure anyone needs that. I think that violence is not actually a cleansing experience. But perhaps you do. Maybe in your time spent in Iraq you had a chance or two to kill some people defending their country. How nice for you.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 2:41pm
MS. Dunn didn't go far enough: FOX TV also represents the arms-dealers who benefit from the continued war-mongering on the right! They're the viewers, as well as the sponsors of these wars and of FOX TV. Otherwise, I congratuleate the White House on their excellent choice of pushing back! Personally, I don't let anybody bully me around! Why should the President??
Posted by DimitraEkmektsis at 10/12/2009 @ 2:45pm
"I'm just giving you a place to start. I survived Iraq so please spare me...."
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 2:25pm
If you survived Iraq, then you know whoever finds themselves in a fair fight is a very poor tactician.
It is extremely selfish of you to place your loved ones in danger for no other reason than you losing your temper and thinking you're ten foot tall and bullet proof.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/12/2009 @ 2:50pm
I agree with you to a point..I do pay taxes..therfore I am in involuntary servitude...ie..no choice..Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 2:39pm
Involuntary Servitude? I guess you don't believe in a Government of the people? Not very American of you. As far as it goes you could always buy an island somewhere and conduct your business with Communists from there. We the People would not miss you.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 2:51pm
pearl-clutching shock Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 2:25pm
What exactly is "pearl-clutching shock", never heard that one.
As far as "cathartic violence" goes I'm not sure anyone needs that. I think that violence is not actually a cleansing experience. But perhaps you do. Maybe in your time spent in Iraq you had a chance or two to kill some people defending their country. How nice for you.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 2:41pm
If he did, then he was defending MY conutry and YOURS..
I for one, am grateful and I would thank him in person....
and when times get tough I want him on my team....not you. You will get us all killed trying to explain to the AQs why the US was wrong and want to know what you can do to make them like us.
BTW, I am in Queens this week 9 miles away from the dangerous man from Iraq.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 2:54pm
Involuntary Servitude? I guess you don't believe in a Government of the people? Not very American of you. As far as it goes you could always buy an island somewhere and conduct your business with Communists from there. We the People would not miss you.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 2:51pm
Or I could do as the Kennedys, Boxers, Feinsteins, Soros, Rangle, POICK ONE..ANYONE OF THE DEMS IN CONGRESS,and other "Men of the People"...live here, pay basic income taxes and protect their wealth off shore against those who think and believe as you...
If I could buy an island, I would...and your type would not be allowed to live there..visit,yes, work and live there, yes, but once you started making noises about how you need access to other peoples money..out you would go...and I am sure the other residents would "help" you on your "bon voyage" to a workers paradise where you would be happier...safe, no risk, govt runs everything, unionisewd, each according to his needs...utopia...even get rides in the peoples truck.
:)
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 3:01pm
and conduct your business with Communists from there. We the People would not miss you.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 2:51pm
I consider YOU more communist than the Chese..
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 3:03pm
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 2:37pm Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 2:41pm
The extreme hyperbole used by the rad left to dehumanize millions of provincials in this country is pretty much identical to that used by the Bolsheviks and Maoists to justify the gulags, famines, and mass killings. This is pretty much the gangamans only point, as far as these blogs.
I think it's fair to say that the victims of the Cultural Revolution probably were pretty damn backwards by our standards, but my liberal ass would still take their side, as I do in the war here between the elite media and left alliance against middle america.
The provincials in this country are liberal and tolerant by world standards, but you would never know that from watching elite media. Comparisons between the persistent labeling of swathes of the country as racists and psychos to the labels hung on signs around peoples necks by the Maoists are fairly easy to make. Far more of a stretch to suggest that protestations against government health care schemes = "ni****!"
All of the innuendoe from the MSM about the tea-baggers, and their propensity for violence is another red herring. The only consistently violent protest movement in this country is the anarchist block.
My question is still, if they are everything that you say they are, should they be allowed one "news" network in their flavor? Should they have rights at all?
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:03pm
CHINESE...I hate typing.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 3:03pm
"If he did, then he was defending MY conutry and YOURS.."
from what? non-existent WMDs? non-existent iraqi terrorist cells?
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 3:04pm
If he did, then he was defending MY conutry and YOURS.. Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 2:54pm
Hey dumbass, there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq until we invaded. And Iraq did not attack us. So your soldier boy was part of an immoral action against a sovereign country and anyone that was killed by his hand or any action against them of which he was part is guilty of murder.
And sadly by extension, since that occupation was carried out in our name, we are all guilty. We have blood on our hands and it doesn't wash off easily.
We should all be ashamed. Especially those who took part in it.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 3:06pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 2:54pm
Thanks. Welcome to Queens.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/12/2009 @ 2:50pm
I'm a single young dude who lives alone.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:08pm
There are no Heroes in Iraq and Afghanistan, only suckers.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 3:10pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 2:36pm
Funny how you "don't listen to Rush" and "don't watch Fox News"...
but LEAP to defend them whenever a thread about them is on "TN".
heheh
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 3:13pm
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 3:06pm
Should I be arrested?
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:13pm
I'm a single young dude who lives alone.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:08pm
If you are a single guy who lives alone and you took part in the debacle that was Iraq, I sincerely hope that you seek help at the VA. That's what it's there for.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 3:15pm
from what? non-existent WMDs? non-existent iraqi terrorist cells?
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 3:04pm
Hopefully from any more loons like you...you are an aid and comfort to any insurgent group tied in anyway to anti-American jihadists...
and what you don't get, if they got their hands on you, as a gay woman...you wouldn't even have the time to protest or hear the shot that took you out...you are not celebrated in the AQ circles..
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 3:16pm
And I would get the second shot..set up by you.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 3:16pm
I am currently attending a trade school on the VA dime, so I guess i'm being "helped."
But, should I be arrested? I was an 11B, infantry, in other words I did see combat. Should I be arrested?
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:19pm
Should I be arrested?
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:13pm
Not any more than we all should. We are all culpable. We are all accessories after the fact.
The problem is many of us protested the occupation without success. And since we are a nation, we are all responsible. It's a bitch.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 3:20pm
"Hopefully from any more loons like you...you are an aid and comfort to any insurgent group tied in anyway to anti-American jihadists..."
maasch, name one anti-american terror cell in iraq prior to march of 2003.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 3:20pm
Hahaha. It's funny to see Jom call anyone partisan. What a hypocrite.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/12/2009 @ 3:27pm
The best way to defeat one enemies is to be successful....Obama has yet to be successful at anything, so, attack your critics is the next best distraction...I smell a one term and a footnote in history coming.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/11/2009 @ 11:35pm
Just curious YJ, do you believe that Fox News is an impartial source for political news in the United States?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/12/2009 @ 3:28pm
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 3:20pm
I suppose there is truth in that, but I would think that someone like me, who volunteered for the Army, knowing that I would be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, is more responsible for the actuation of those wars than someone who protested against them.
Should there be any limitation on my rights? Or the rights of others who support the war effort or do not want any change to health care, who do not like Obama, who listen to Fox News? Should Fox News be taken off the air?
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:29pm
My point is, people die when those in power lie. And those in power are still busy lying. As long as we allow this, we as a people will be responsible for the destruction that results. In any functioning Democracy it is the responsibility of the people to stop this insanity.
If we don't, who will? And as long as we turn a deaf ear to these horrible trangressions against humanity, we will continue to carry the Karmic burden of doing nothing about it.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 3:33pm
"Should there be any limitation on my rights? Or the rights of others who support the war effort or do not want any change to health care, who do not like Obama, who listen to Fox News? Should Fox News be taken off the air?"
this is the perfect example of a failed debate strategy. instead of engaging the criticisms of fox news, of the health insurance industry's efforts to kill the public option, and the interests of war profiteers to continue the slaughter of innocents, gangpapist instead incredulously claims that his opponents only want to silence him and/or curtail his right to express himself.
in other words, gangpapist has no rational arguments against his critics.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 3:35pm
I don't care what you call it gangpapist, but putting your address on the web for g-d and everybody to see is just plain foolish. Fox news is a joke and its about time the WHITE house got some thatchers.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/12/2009 @ 3:36pm
OK. But what is allowable in stopping the insanity? Should some censorship be used fot the greater good? Should glenn beck be banned from public speaking?
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:38pm
"Should glenn beck be banned from public speaking?"
no
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 3:42pm
Funny how you "don't listen to Rush" and "don't watch Fox News"...
but LEAP to defend them whenever a thread about them is on "TN".
heheh
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 3:13pm
Care to explain how this comment was a "defense" of Fox?
So who cares about either network. let's move on to things that matter.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 2:36pm
Let me be clear to you Mask (and I'm repeating), I DON'T LIKE FOXNEWS. I DON'T CARE FOR THE HOSTS (except maybe Wallace and Brett Baier). I don't like Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck who are supposed to be their top anchors. I can't stand the early morning program or it's anchors.
As to Rush, I simply noted that unless there is some news I haven't heard about, I'm unaware of Rush having a program on Fox.
I again repeat re Rush, I don't listen to him except perhaps 1-2 hours total in a 4-6 month period. His air time doesn't fit in with my life schedule. I think he is highly entertaining and as I've said before, he is not an original thinker. Limbaugh has developed a successful entertainer's format of regurgitating what others say and think as if it came from him.
It's made him highly successful and good for him. Just like I wish anyone, right or left, to be successful in whatever they pursue for a career.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:43pm
I second Darlas no gangpapist.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/12/2009 @ 3:46pm
Should there be any limitation on my rights? Or the rights of others who support the war effort or do not want any change to health care, who do not like Obama, who listen to Fox News? Should Fox News be taken off the air?
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:29pm
There are a bunch of thorny questions in that paragraph.
But my questions would be. Why would anyone support the occupation of another soverign nation that did nothing to us? Why would anyone be against health care for everyone? Why would anyone dislike or hate a President who has only been in office for 9 months? (I'm not real happy with him at the moment either, but I don't dislike him). And why would anyone want to listen to a fake news network that spreads lies, fear, disinformation, hate and insurrection?
Those are the questions I ask.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 3:46pm
Just curious YJ, do you believe that Fox News is an impartial source for political news in the United States?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/12/2009 @ 3:28pm
No. I believe they are conservative and apply a conservative slant...The rest of the entire media I believe are left and apply a liberal slant...the Fox claims to be Fair and Balanced...and they believe they are....
I do believe they are fair, but not balanced..... and I never did believe the other networks were ever fair and balanced or just reported the facts...when 98% of your reporters admit they are liberal or vote dem, from NY...you ain't gonna get fair and balanced either.
I do think Fox covers storys that the bulk of the networks ignore by choice...
Ie
The crap that is ACORN, The Jones story, the pervert in charge of School children protection...the endless czars...
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 3:48pm
"the pervert in charge of School children protection"
"pervert" = "homosexual"?
nice one, john, so thoughtful.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 3:49pm
Posted by Denise29 at 10/12/2009 @ 3:36pm
Thank g-d you didn't capitalize "thatchers" or you'd have the right wing going completely gaga.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/12/2009 @ 3:50pm
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 3:35pm
I am not going to waste my time trying to make Fox News palatable to darla.
This debate is not about whether Fox vs. MSNBC is more right or wrong on X issue.
It seems to follow that if Fox, and conservatives, are all some kind of subhuman racist psychopaths than maybe we should allow them less rights than those enjoyed by fully human educated urban intellectuals.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:52pm
Try and find any Republican on the major networks as he tries to get his point out about health care...how many HR were voted down in the house? What were they? what did the bills say?
If they were nonsense and just blocking health care then we should know that...but they weren't even covered...
Would we have know how many pages the bill was?
Would we even be aware that the health care bill was written by ades and the members NEVER INTENDED TO READ THEM?
Would we have known who the connections to ACORN, THE TIDES, THE SCHOOL CDS being shown and who made them?Why isn't that an interesting story?
Its endless.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 3:52pm
Sorelish, Ha!
Posted by Denise29 at 10/12/2009 @ 3:54pm
Sorelish, first time I heard thatchers, can't remember where, I thought I can't wait to be able to use that in a sentence, good one huh.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/12/2009 @ 3:56pm
Evidently Fox is popular with many Americans (I don't watch it) Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 2:36pm
DON'T LIKE FOXNEWS. I DON'T CARE FOR THE HOSTS (except maybe Wallace and Brett Baier). Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:43pm
So you don't watch Fox News but you happen to like Wallace and Brett Baier.
Hmmm. Another lie. If you don't watch Fox News how come you kinda like Wallace and Brett Baier.
You have no credibility and are even asinine enough to contradict yourself in a matter of minutes.
I rest my case your Honor...
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 3:59pm
I don't recall any of the previous administrations declaring "war" on a hostile press...other than just not asking Helen Thomas for her opinions cloaked as questions in press conferences.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/12/2009 @ 08:38am
How is "Will you state for the record, for the historical record, why [Bush] wants to bomb Iraqi people? --March 5, 2003" an opinion?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/12/2009 @ 4:02pm
But my questions would be. Why would anyone support the occupation of another soverign nation that did nothing to us? Why would anyone be against health care for everyone? Why would anyone dislike or hate a President who has only been in office for 9 months? (I'm not real happy with him at the moment either, but I don't dislike him). And why would anyone want to listen to a fake news network that spreads lies, fear, disinformation, hate and insurrection?
Those are the questions I ask.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 3:46pm
I can break this downn..
1. I would support a occupying a nation that supported another nationed that was attacking us..as part of a strategy to defeat the attacking enemy.
2.I don't know anyone who is against health care for everyone. You frame the question wrong. The question is how to cover them...
3.Hating or disliking the president in 9 months is not the issue..I hate his policies 1 day into office as much as 4 years later. I do not hate the president anymore than I hate you or anyone else.
4. Because you think their(Fox) coverage is fake doesn't mean it is..and you can be asked the same question..how can you listen to the fake news that appears on all the major networks, almost at the same time with the same story? Maybe you are listening to fake news...should you be stopped? or the networks?
Now, why can't you answer his question, instead of asking yours?
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 4:03pm
"Try and find any Republican on the major networks as he tries to get his point out about health care"
(quote of the day)
jomamma, republicans/conservatives outnumber democrats/progressives, on the sunday talk shows, by a factor of 2 to 1 on every major policy issue.
all i can say is, anyone who argues that democrats are drowning out republicans on policy issues on the major talk shows has no idea what he's talking about.
none whatsoever.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 4:05pm
"Try and find any Republican on the major networks as he tries to get his point out about health care"
(quote of the day)
jomamma, republicans/conservatives outnumber democrats/progressives, on the sunday talk shows, by a factor of 2 to 1 on every major policy issue.
all i can say is, anyone who argues that democrats are drowning out republicans on policy issues on the major talk shows has no idea what he's talking about.
none whatsoever.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 4:05pm
"the pervert in charge of School children protection"
"pervert" = "homosexual"?
nice one, john, so thoughtful.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 3:49pm
Idiot...
The perverted thing is giving advice to a 15 year old about having sex with a person who is an old man and not reporting it to authoritys...
Yes, his advice to the minor makes him a pervert as much as the guy in the bus depot bathroom....
and the fact you can't see the difference between the above and a homsexual slam make you...
and that you obviously don't know a pervert when you are faced with one, or are willing to cover for one because he is gay makes you part of the problem.
and an idiot. Shame on you.
You are now personaly ignored..
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 4:09pm
Now, why can't you answer his question, instead of asking yours?
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 4:03pm
I answered the questions with other questions, but that sort of thing is obviously beyond your mental capacity (and you run a business?)
The rest of your post is full of gobbledygoo. Funny that you would bother to number nonsense. Quite amusing actually.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 4:10pm
Yeah, good word Denise! Fun to do that. And thanks for reminding us of the Iron Lady or She of the Starched Knickers.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/12/2009 @ 4:13pm
Hmmm. Another lie. If you don't watch Fox News how come you kinda like Wallace and Brett Baier.
You have no credibility and are even asinine enough to contradict yourself in a matter of minutes.
I rest my case your Honor...
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 3:59pm
Nonsense..if he knows what time slot the particular show is on or knows it comes on Wednesdays at 7:00 and he tunes in then only, then he is a fan and watcher of that show,,not the entire network...
It ain't that hard commrade.
You may rest your case, and still get sentence to the looney bin.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 4:14pm
"all i can say is, anyone who argues that democrats are drowning out republicans on policy issues on the major talk shows has no idea what he's talking about.
none whatsoever.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 4:05pm "
They are drowned out in Congress ,Einstein...and never they nor their issues or objections covered in depth to serve the greater public.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 4:16pm
I answered the questions with other questions, but that sort of thing is obviously beyond your mental capacity (and you run a business?)
The rest of your post is full of gobbledygoo. Funny that you would bother to number nonsense. Quite amusing actually.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 4:10pm
You answered questions with other questions....and I am gobbledygoo...
Yes, I run a few successful business...and you drive a truck...for the Post Office.
I rest my case..your HONOR.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 4:18pm
"and an idiot. Shame on you. You are now personaly ignored.."
maasch, you are a homophobe, or you're just ridiculously stupid.
jennings never gave "sexual advice" to a 15 year old! he gave advice to someone of legal age (16+) about a relationship he was having with an older man.
that's it! and it doesn't matter that jennings is gay! it has nothing to do with the situation.
and, as fox claimed, he was not "covering up a statutory rape."
so, basically, maasch, you were too lazy to do you own research, and just took fox's word for it.
gee, why would fox want to fire jennings?
'cuz he's gay. and a democrat.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 4:19pm
It's not politically astute to let Fox news drag the Obama administration down to it's level. Noting their presence but merely commenting,for example, about the right to free speech, might indicate a certain "wimpiness", but as I see it, it keeps Obama above the mud-slinging. I hope the policy of answering barb with barb will change right now!
Posted by RSHECHTER at 10/12/2009 @ 4:19pm
john maasch proves over and over again why americans need more education in media studies.
the jennings "controversy" was thoroughly debunked by actual news outlets, and the only people covering the "Story" are fox news, because obviously, fox news wants to destroy obama.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 4:21pm
from the very person to whom jennings gave advice:
"In 1988, I had taken a bus home for the weekend, and on the return trip met someone who was also gay. The next day, I had a conversation with Mr. Jennings about it. I had no sexual contact with anybody at the time, though I was entirely legally free to do so. I was a sixteen year-old going through something most of us have experienced: adolescence."
yup, there's maasch's huge "controversy" fueled by the "fair and balanced" fox news!
way to go john, you independent thinker you! no, you're not homophobic at all!
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 4:26pm
I survived Iraq
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 2:25pm
you do seem rather violent.
perhaps you haven't survived intact.
just sayin'....
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 4:27pm
Ok, my questions aren't being answered so let's try something else.
Right now the administration and the non-Fox propaganda networks have a united front against Fox, and Fox has the ratings and gets more replay on the other networks than Chad Ochocinco gets on ESPN. Zinger!
Let's imagine a very feasible scenario. Unforeseen world events force Obama into a hawkish action. The effete Europeans have fainting spells. The abandonment of BHO by the campus Left is complete. Some of the MSM follow suit, perhaps CNN stays neutral. Meanwhile, black americans continue huge margins of support. BET doesn't flinch.
What does the rad left do? Portray blacks as mouthbreathing tribalists who could not care less about the GENOCIDE being perpetrated by warmonger Obama? A quandary.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 4:28pm
The next step in the evolution of common sense, will be to recognize that FOX represents the Conservatism - not a fringe aberration element of rogue Conservatism - but Conservatism . Then Democrats will understand that William Buckley is GONE - in fact always was a front - that we have had Conservative continuity and consistency ever since Joseph McCarthy - and, that helping Conservatives is even worse than being Conservative - Bi-Partisanship is Betrayal.
Posted by DPGrassley at 10/12/2009 @ 4:28pm
Nonsense..if he knows what time slot the particular show is on or knows it comes on Wednesdays at 7:00 and he tunes in then only, then he is a fan and watcher of that show,,not the entire network... Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 4:14pm
There is just one obvious flaw in your reasoning, maybe two. Number one is that if Anti is so diciplined that he only tunes in to segments by Wallace and Brett Baier, he is still watching Fox News. He didn't say he didn't watch Fox News except for Wallace and Bret Baier. And to stretch incredulity to the next level you would have to believe that he religiously either recorded those particular segments because he had loved them on another network. Which means he would have had to follow Brett when he was on local networks in Raleigh, NC, Rockford IL, or Beaufort, SC.
You can spin it any way you want but Anti is still a liar and so are you!
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 4:30pm
That sign around your neck that says "I'm a Moron" is getting bigger and bigger. And heavy to, I'll wager.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 4:34pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 4:27pm
I introduce the question of violence because if middle america truly is as described by many of these bloggers, then violence is not only an option, it's a necessity.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 4:34pm
So who cares about either network. let's move on to things that matter.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 2:36pm
"We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us."
Marshall McLuhan
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 4:35pm
Goodnight all. It's been fun cutting these miscreants off at the knees.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 4:35pm
FAUX SPEWS not real news!?!?! Just GOPaganda!?!?!
Who could'a known...!?!?!?!
Oh well, now that everyone else knows-- now perhaps we can start prosecuting for lying.
A free press isn't meant to freely lie.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2009 @ 4:37pm
If he did, then he was defending MY conutry and YOURS.. I for one, am grateful and I would thank him in person....
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 2:54pm
defending your country from whom, pray tell?
the iraq fiasco has harmed america irreparably.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 4:38pm
And sadly by extension, since that occupation was carried out in our name, we are all guilty. We have blood on our hands and it doesn't wash off easily.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 3:06pm
oil's well that ends well....
"When war and market merge, all money transactions begin to drip blood."
Marshall McLuhan
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 4:41pm
I suppose there is truth in that, but I would think that someone like me, who volunteered for the Army, knowing that I would be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, is more responsible for the actuation of those wars than someone who protested against them.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:29pm
read this:
http://amconmag.com/article/2009/nov/01/00045/
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 4:44pm
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 4:35pm
Ya, you really slayed me by dodging my questions.
"Oh well, now that everyone else knows-- now perhaps we can start prosecuting for lying."
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2009 @ 4:37pm
Ah, here's a start. So we should prosecute people for "lying," i.e. disagreeing with you. What should the punishment be? Is rape off limits, or in some cases OK?
Meanwhile, we should treat as equals other nation's state-run media with their Protocauls of the Elders of Zion the miniseries, all while we send O'Reilly to the clink.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 4:45pm
Should glenn beck be banned from public speaking?
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:38pm
should usama bin laden?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 4:46pm
How is "Will you state for the record, for the historical record, why [Bush] wants to bomb Iraqi people? --March 5, 2003" an opinion?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/12/2009 @ 4:02pm
Yes.
Asked in that manner, it presupposes that our Air Force target lists were to be comprised of civilian, noncombatant targets on purpose, because Bush specifically wanted to kill noncombatant Iraqi civilians.
Perhaps Ms. Thomas could explain why she thinks any American President would specifically target non-military civilian targets, and what possible political or military advantage that would give us.
For if she wasn't listening to the reasons stated for bombing Bath Party infrastructure and Iraqi military targets, she was asking a rhetorical, loaded question.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/12/2009 @ 4:46pm
It seems to follow that if Fox, and conservatives, are all some kind of subhuman racist psychopaths than maybe we should allow them less rights than those enjoyed by fully human educated urban intellectuals.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:52pm
•• fox is the tool of oligarchs, not conservatives.
•• karma will take care of racists.
•• fewer, not less.
•• why do you hate the french?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 4:51pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 4:03pm
like talking to jell-o.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 4:53pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 4:46pm
I think you know how a violent guy like me thinks ubl should be dealt with.
Until then, his communiques (real or fake) are widely reported, which is the editorial decision of the news outlets.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 4:55pm
all i can say is, anyone who argues that democrats are drowning out republicans on policy issues on the major talk shows has no idea what he's talking about.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 4:05pm
alan greenspan and his clone helicopter ben worked for republican and democratic administrations.
two sides of a one sided coin.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 4:56pm
Evidently Fox is popular with many Americans (I don't watch it) Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 2:36pm
DON'T LIKE FOXNEWS. I DON'T CARE FOR THE HOSTS (except maybe Wallace and Brett Baier). Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:43pm
So you don't watch Fox News but you happen to like Wallace and Brett Baier.
Hmmm. Another lie. If you don't watch Fox News how come you kinda like Wallace and Brett Baier.
You have no credibility and are even asinine enough to contradict yourself in a matter of minutes.
I rest my case your Honor...
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 3:59pm
Let me clarify.
I do not watch Fox News programming at all during the week.
I occasionally watch Wallace on a Sunday when he has guests I want to see interviewed. And Wallace I might add is a Democrat. Brent Braier I have seen twice when he hosted a Sunday morning panel and I thought he was pretty objective. Otherwise, I never turn on Fox because I dislike their overall programming and I thoroughly dislike Hannity and O'Reilly (and have said so here for several years). I've never watched Beck and only knew of him beyond his name because of the Nation blogs.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 4:57pm
The PR Dept in the WH is smart to do this. Glad to see they are alive and well. First this stuff about Fox ratings is really not relevant. Look who watches Fox loyally, the demographics. Those people are the same that turn out for Teabag parties. The younger crowd watches their news like Jon Stewart, Bill Mayer and you have several others who do not watch TV news but get their news from the Internet and other sources.
By calling Fox news out, you are showing them for what they are which is not a news organization and you are not going to get hurt by it in the least. You will win in the end instead of letting them get away with it and they will have to start watching themselves.
Posted by Jon4305 at 10/12/2009 @ 4:58pm
The effete Europeans
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 4:28pm
maybe so many years of blowing each other up has taught them not to be so stupid.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 5:03pm
I introduce the question of violence because if middle america truly is as described by many of these bloggers, then violence is not only an option, it's a necessity.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 4:34pm
well,
i've noticed a violent undercurrent in the majority of your posts, not just on this thread.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 5:11pm
(I really am a hardcore cheapo).
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/12/2009 @ 12:35pm
Good for your and your heirs' future! I am a hardcore value guy! Sam Walton is my hero......I dress and drive just like him. Stone cheap against designer anything, endorsed sneakers, after-shave, you name it! No one would ever accuse me of dressing for success or vain in what I drive! BIG bangs for my bucks! Go, WalMart!
Posted by Happy at 10/12/2009 @ 5:20pm
Go, WalMart!
Posted by Happy at 10/12/2009 @ 5:20pm
u.s. trade deficit with china as of aug. 2009 = $143,699,900,000
go, walmart!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 5:25pm
I submit to you that fox news has been telling me how much of an American I am or am not; this by a company owned by an Australian news hack and his Chinese wife. It is nothing more than the FEMA trailer of disinformation and hate faux news entertainment for the students that got left behind....and then got old.
Posted by Moanadave at 10/12/2009 @ 5:26pm
i've noticed a violent undercurrent in the majority of your posts, not just on this thread.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 5:11pm
He was a warrior and young, plus single.....wait till your son starts into video games, even if not in the home!
Posted by Happy at 10/12/2009 @ 5:27pm
""I have not given up advocacy of one-hundred percent reserves"
milton friedman
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 5:28pm
u.s. trade deficit with china as of aug. 2009 = $143,699,900,000
go, walmart!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 5:25pm
What's our oil import deficit? How about $250 to $300 billion; and it ain't to the Chinese!
Posted by Happy at 10/12/2009 @ 5:29pm
"Oh well, now that everyone else knows-- now perhaps we can start prosecuting for lying." Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2009 @ 4:37pm Ah, here's a start. So we should prosecute people for "lying," Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 4:45pm
A free press isn't meant to freely lie.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2009 @ 4:37pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2009 @ 5:32pm
What's our oil import deficit? How about $250 to $300 billion; and it ain't to the Chinese!
Posted by Happy at 10/12/2009 @ 5:29pm
we've got you by the balls, hap.
oil is poison.
lust for oil is leading america to the brink.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 5:33pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 5:11pm
Sigh. You guys are always picking up on all kinds of bad intentions with your spiritual tuning forks.
I want to know how far the hyperventilating labelers think we should go.
Again, if MACs are 1) racist 2) subhuman 3) genocidal, would it not be immoral NOT to use any means necessary to neutralize the threat.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 5:35pm
Secondly, Obama is spending 190% of the budget in just 8 months REGARDLESS of the fact it will produce ZERO growth, just a temorary boost, say building a bridge, and when bridge is built, the jobs go away..nothing lasting.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 1:21pm
YJ,
The bridge will be lasting...and in a nation whose infrastructure hasn't been kept up to date, a lasting bridge is something, so your money is not being wasted.
The idea behind the stimulus is not to make everyone government employees, regardless of what Larry or Happy or you might think. It is to keep the economy going while business, namely the corporations who have screwed up so badly, can pick their butts off the floor and get back on their feet. Once that has happened, then we go back to being a good little capitalist country again where business provides the jobs and government doesn't have to.
It's the EXACT same thing FDR did during the Depression and it worked. It will work again. The stimulus is meant to be temporary.
You should have figured that out by now, and if you knew anything about economics, you would understand not only why it will work, but that benefits like bridges are things America NEEDS right now.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/12/2009 @ 5:39pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2009 @ 5:32pm
Exactly. But what is the truth? The truth is what rad left extremists say it is. Anything else is a lie. Which is why we should prosecute media people you don't like.
Get the liars out and you will have nothing but truthiness. Look around the world at state-run media. Try to find a lie. It's like trying to find that goddamn waldo, cause there ain't nothing but the sunshiny illuminating Trrruuuth!
Now, how should they be punished?
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 5:41pm
We should all be ashamed. Especially those who took part in it.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/12/2009 @ 3:06pm
I strongly disagree with your post. While I do believe that there is a moral stance for every soldier to take for his or her own well being during an actual war (there are always a few conscientious objectors), I do NOT blame the individual soldiers for the things they do (or are ordered to do) during wartime. I find it more sad that in all our names, thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed and even more have been injured and/or dislocated.
I lay the fault squarely at the feet of our "illustrious leader" GWBush and his other two Marx Brothers (how's THAT for Marxists, you silly Republicans out there!) for creating a state of affairs where most soldiers believed they were going into Iraq to protect America. That's not their fault. If I were them, I would be even more pissed at W and Company than I am, just as a regular citizen. They put their lives on the line for a bunch of LIES; I never had to do that.
And our Republican bloggers call that "being true to the military." What a sad state of affairs. There's a reason more than 50% of active duty soldiers voted for Obama; they want a change too.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/12/2009 @ 5:50pm
Stephen_Carver1. WORD!
Posted by Denise29 at 10/12/2009 @ 5:58pm
What does the rad left do? Portray blacks as mouthbreathing tribalists who could not care less about the GENOCIDE being perpetrated by warmonger Obama? A quandary.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 4:28pm
But that's pretty much exactly how Fox News paints him now....
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/12/2009 @ 6:01pm
For if she wasn't listening to the reasons stated for bombing Bath Party infrastructure and Iraqi military targets, she was asking a rhetorical, loaded question.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/12/2009 @ 4:46pm
So she, as a reporter, was supposed to take Bush and Co. at their word for why they were bombing places in Iraq? "Target rich" Iraq instead of "target poor" Afghanistan?
From before he became President, W wanted war in Iraq, if for no other reason than to show he could do it better than Daddy (which he couldn't) or to get boots on the ground over all that oil. Period. Saddam was just an excuse. Nothing Helen Thomas asked him or could have asked him, within THAT context, is or ever could have been out of order, rhetorical or loaded. W's the one who came into office with an agenda, not Helen Thomas.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/12/2009 @ 6:08pm
A free press isn't meant to freely lie.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2009 @ 4:37pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2009 @ 5:32pm
Someone better tell that to Dan Rather before he wastes more money on lawyers.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 6:11pm
Who does MSNBC represent?
Posted by dicere at 10/12/2009 @ 6:18pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2009 @ 5:32pm Exactly. But what is the truth?... Now, how should they be punished? Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 5:41pm
Might it just be that you can't really handle the truth (ha) nor much less want to arrive at it.
Libel/slander/defamation laws/torts/fines exist, plus then again the actual malice is per an organized conglomerate-- could be viewed as RICO Act violation to defraud the US citizenry; to benefit multinational corporations. In this scenario, new con repub GOPeers are unwitting but active accomplices.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2009 @ 6:23pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/12/2009 @ 5:50pm
Just one vets perspective. I was in Iraq Dec 2005 - Dec 2006. That was as very bad year. I was personally extremely frustrated because it seemed as if our mission was to simply stay alive, which we could have more easily accomplished back home.
Soon after my unit re-deployed, the surge was begun, and casualties went down.
I did not see or even hear about any civilians being killed by my unit. I did see some civilians mistreated by US personnel, which I reported to my CO and caught some heat for.
Members of my unit, in conjunction with SF, killed AM al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian AQ who attempted to create a civil war through his campaign of bombings. I did not consider that he was a freedom fighter.
I don't deny that civilians are killed, but US forces have a stringent ROE. Soldiers chafe under it. Even I did, a couple of times, and I was the hajji-loving hippie type in my unit.
I have not heard anything that would convince me that Iraq is not better off now, with the trump being that the Kurds no longer need fear genocide.
The far left narrative of "war against the Iraqi people" is simply false. If I had something to atone for, I would be here telling you that, but here I am, an unashamed veteran, with no hatred for Arabs or Muslims. Sure, I could be lying, but I assure you there are thousands like me. And I think most Americans, whether they oppose the war or not, know that most vets need not be ashamed of either having been duped, or willingly having volunteered to wage war against "the Iraqi people," because we did neither.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 6:30pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/12/2009 @ 6:08pm
No, you are attempting to steer the point into a discussion about what you believed Bush's planned policies were going to be. We're talking about Helen Thomas and loaded, rhetorical questions.
Let me put it to you this way. Suppose it's the 1990s and we're bombing Serbia. Which of these two questioins do you consider to be an objective, non-loaded question, and which is designed for other purposes?
"Will you state for the record, for the historical record, why Clinton wants to bomb Serbian people?"
"Will you state for the record, for the historical record, why Clinton wants to bomb Serbian military forces and infrastructure?"
Which of these two is more objective? We can be certain that Serbian people, civilians died in Clinton's bombing of Serbia. Just as we are certain they were not specifically targeted for bombing.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/12/2009 @ 6:37pm
He was a warrior and young, plus single.....wait till your son starts into video games, even if not in the home!
Posted by Happy at 10/12/2009 @ 5:27pm
a warrior?
man, that is so cheesy.
i think he was a broke and/or brainwashed pawn.
nothing personal, gang.
warrior -- sheesh.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 6:37pm
I think the White House should increasingly marginalize Fox by not taking it seriously. The White House should persistently take a calm, reasoned stance, keep voicing the reality that Fox like Limbaugh/ Clear Channel is dishonorable, that they are doing a disservice to our republic by distorting rather than reporting. Distorting every event and political development in the same predictable direction. That they are free to continue to do this, but propaganda is not journalism, even when it claims to be.
Posted by winyahn at 10/12/2009 @ 6:39pm
You should have figured that out by now, and if you knew anything about economics, you would understand not only why it will work, but that benefits like bridges are things America NEEDS right now.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/12/2009 @ 5:39pm
what america needs right now is to pay back A LOT of debt.
more debt only puts off the inevitable.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 6:40pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/12/2009 @ 6:01pm
I missed that episode.
Seriously though, how would you deal with that?
You may not be aware of this, but many blacks are not aware of Noam Chomsky, not particularly anxious about global warming, not especially gay-friendly, quite a few are "religulous." In other words, minus the racial divide and some cultural differences, they have more in common with their yahoo white brethren than with the elites in the MSM and on Wall Street. There is equal opportunity in this nation to not be an elitist vegan eunuch.
So how will you handle it you must abandon Obama, and the blacks who owe you so very much stick with him?
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 6:42pm
Again, if MACs are 1) racist 2) subhuman 3) genocidal, would it not be immoral NOT to use any means necessary to neutralize the threat.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 5:35pm
MACs? what's that?
may i suggest saving flint before you try to save the world.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 6:44pm
Now, how should they be punished?
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 5:41pm
perhaps you could send them away to fight the empire's next war.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 6:45pm
There's a reason more than 50% of active duty soldiers voted for Obama; they want a change too.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/12/2009 @ 5:50pm
too bad they don't understand fractional reserve banking.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 6:48pm
oil. Period. Saddam was just an excuse.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/12/2009 @ 6:08pm
actually,
it was more about abandoning the dollar.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 6:50pm
Who does MSNBC represent?
Posted by dicere at 10/12/2009 @ 6:18pm
same as obama -- GE.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 6:51pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2009 @ 6:23pm
OK, so you believe that we can use pre-existing law to put conservative media types in the clink.
What kind of sentences?
Should tea-baggers be allowed to protest, even if they are "lying?"
When should violence be used?
In the event that police officers in many jurisdictions may not be willing to use force against conservative protesters, even when they lie, should volunteers be assembled that could make citizen's arrests of offenders. Maybe ACORN members could be deputized...
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 6:51pm
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 6:30pm
look,
from my perspective canadians (on average -- whatever that means) live better lives than the people of flint.
should we invade flint?
or should that revolution come from within.
who created america, ¿the germans?
another good question is who created iraq?
and
who created "saddam"?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 6:56pm
There is equal opportunity in this nation to not be an elitist vegan eunuch.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 6:42pm
again, more violence.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 6:58pm
No, you are attempting to steer the point into a discussion about what you believed Bush's planned policies were going to be. We're talking about Helen Thomas and loaded, rhetorical questions.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/12/2009 @ 6:37pm
No, my point is that Bush STATED before he was President, when he was still Gov. of Texas (where I'm from) that if elected, he wanted to go into Iraq.
Now, that seems a pretty clear statement. In that context, EVERYTHING after that is fair game from a reporter's point of view, especially considering that Bush's excuses for going to war were, from the very beginning, LIES.
I don't disagree with you that Helen Thomas asks "loaded" questions (although we obviously differ on the meaning of the word), but it certainly wasn't rhetorical. She asks tough questions of everyone (including Clinton) and the fact that Bush stopped asking her for questions is indicative of the coward that he truly was.
The Fourth Estate is the ONLY thing that might keep us free in this day and age of corporatism and political bickering and in-fighting. I WANT my journalists to ask tough questions of our leaders, don't you?
Or do you prefer the Faux News puff interviews of Dick Cheney?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/12/2009 @ 7:04pm
Oh, frost, don't you know that you're denying "agency" (see, I read lefty texts) to the Iraqi strongman.
Nations interfere in other nations affairs, even small, weak ones. Small and weak we are not, but we did not "create" Saddam.
I am familiar with the venal duplicity of the Rumsfeldian wing of the Repubs, especially during the Cold War. Its a bad world. I'll side with Stalin against Hitler, Cheney against Hussein.
If Jesse Helms came back from the dead with a foolproof plan for stealthily disarming N. Koreas nukes, and liberating the prison camps, all while making a bundle selling overpriced hot dogs to our troops, I'd be at the recruiters faster than you can say git 'ur done.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 7:11pm
"The far left narrative of "war against the Iraqi people" is simply false"
(quote of the day)
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 7:21pm
2 days in a row. Damn, I'm good!
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 7:27pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/12/2009 @ 7:04pm
So what. It was official US policy and law to remove Saddam Hussein since 1998. Legislation pushed by Clinton and Democrats, along with Republicans.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 7:27pm
Fox news is run by Fabians, just like all media. The best way to control your opposition is to actually be your opposition...
How any of you trust any MSM outlet is beyond me, Fox included. Today's media is the Hegelian Dialectic in full force. It is dividing us as a people.
By design. And it is working.
While the real power over us operates in total obscurity.
By design. And it is working.
Ultimately those of us seeing a "my side" and "your side" will be blindsided by the fact that there's only one side. We are being duped. And we don't even see it. How sad for those of us not part of the elite.
Posted by ginza00 at 10/12/2009 @ 7:28pm
"So what. It was official US policy and law to remove Saddam Hussein since 1998. Legislation pushed by Clinton and Democrats, along with Republicans."
even if this were true, then why didn't bush just say:
"we need to remove sadaam now, no matter what the cost in blood and treasure, because it is US policy"
rather than lie about WMDs, al qaeda, etc?
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 7:36pm
No, my point is that Bush STATED before he was President, when he was still Gov. of Texas (where I'm from) that if elected, he wanted to go into Iraq.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/12/2009 @ 7:04pm
Vice President AL GORE wrote to INC president Ahmed Chalabi on Aug. 4, 1993. He called INC leaders "spokespersons for millions," affirmed Washington's "solid commitment" to "your struggle" and pledged that U.S. officials "will not turn our backs."
unanimous, it seems.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 8:05pm
a warrior?
man, that is so cheesy.
warrior -- sheesh.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 6:37pm
So what would you call folks who carry weapons & go participate in a a war voluntarily, heck, even involuntarily? Cheesy Soldiers or Chuckies?
Posted by Happy at 10/12/2009 @ 8:06pm
For he's thinking the movie star of "The Caine Mutiny" and "Brigadoon" was in the Obama Administration. Although he is "gone"...as he died last December.
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 1:21pm
Van Johnson--rest his soul.
Classic lines in the Caine Mutiny by Bogart: "...and then there was the strawberry incident..." while rolling those marbles around in his hand, and with a pre-Clintonesque hand thing going on. Van Johnson et al. getting castigated by defense attorney/JAG played by the relatively youthful Jose Ferrer for being punk kids and making fun of Bogie's veteran Capt. Queeg. Great stuff.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/12/2009 @ 8:14pm
Every soldier knows The Army Creed backwards and forwards which begins... "I am an American Soldier. I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States and live the Army Values."
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 8:17pm
It's not Lord Byron.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 8:19pm
Nations interfere in other nations affairs, even small, weak ones.
•• stupid humans. can't wait till we're done with that nonsense.
Small and weak we are not, but we did not "create" Saddam.
•• the british created "iraq"; civilizing for the brutes, it was. sheesh. saddam was the cia's buddy for a long, long time.
I am familiar with the venal duplicity of the Rumsfeldian wing of the Repubs, especially during the Cold War.
•• just there?
Its a bad world. I'll side with Stalin against Hitler, Cheney against Hussein.
•• what about cheney and all the other despots who were still his buddies? por favor.
If Jesse Helms came back from the dead with a foolproof plan for stealthily disarming N. Koreas nukes,
•• oh, the plan is always foolproof.
and liberating the prison camps, all while making a bundle selling overpriced hot dogs to our troops, I'd be at the recruiters faster than you can say git 'ur done.
•• maybe flint is a better place to start.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 7:11pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 8:27pm
So what would you call folks who carry weapons & go participate in a a war voluntarily, heck, even involuntarily?
Posted by Happy at 10/12/2009 @ 8:06pm
pawns.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 8:29pm
"I am any Soldier. I am a Pawn and a Cog in a machine. I serve the oligarchs of Whereverland and my life is disposable."
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 8:34pm
MEET JOEMOMMA, THE MOST ANNOYING KID IN THE WORLD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvPciRmLSlU&feature=fvst
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 8:38pm
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 6:51pm
Sounds like you live in a state violent fear of the truth all the time.
BTW, since you're so into being violated, know why more military died during Raygun's presidency than during hsuB's or Clinton's; almost combined!?
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2009 @ 9:52pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/12/2009 @ 7:04pm
Here's the point. At the time Helen Thomas asked her question, the administration had already listed something like 17 reasons why it would be a good idea, or justified, to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
17 reasons. Ranging from WMD violations--which Saddam later admitted to his FBI interrogator that he'd pretended to have for 10 years or so--to human rights violations (like those mass graves that turn up from time to time in the Iraqi countryside).
So why was Helen Thomas asking a question that had already been answered? Something that was already a part of the "historical record" to the extent that House and Senate Democrats approved use of force in Iraq to achieve these ends.
Well, she asked it because she wanted to frame it in the context of "bombing people".
And Bush mentioning that he would go back to Iraq as governor is supposed to bother me? Clinton would've been justified to do that at any time during his presidency. When you violate the terms of the cease fire, like moving troops into restricted areas, you create the legality of "resumption of hostilities". Saddam did that numerous times in the 1990s. Resumption of hostilities was completely justified. Indeed, when you consider the bounties Saddam offerred for allied planes enforcing the no-fly zones to protect Shiites and Kurds, the hostilities never really ended.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/12/2009 @ 10:04pm
Yeah, what's so hard about just fact checking? Well, FAUX SPEWS would have to spend half their next show doing retractions, or getting fined for willingly lying on the public airwaves.
Most criminals will publicly whine about being innocent and framed, but if all they had to do is correct their substantiated wrongdoing, would they still choose to go to jail instead?
(FCC requiring truth telling on the airwaves, what a concept!)
Whining infers that there 'isn't' a just cause for at least making the effort to acknowledge the truth.
In the scale of time, which benefits most moving a major cause forward, taking FAUX SPEWS to task on air for their regularly viewing receptacles to simply flush anything too weighty and complicated for their acknowledged preference-- the excessively blended always remaining aroma of hate.
Or rather to do as Dunn did, to acknowledge the obvious waste of time being spewed at a la FAUX SPEWS, for a smarter preference; making better use of limited time and energy elsewhere.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/12/2009 @ 11:17pm
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 2:00pm
No, gangpapist. If we did that, they'd have the same rights as black and brown people. That wouldn't be right.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 2:02pm
Nothing to fear, physically. The number of people that have any knowledge of how to use a weapon on this board is likely less than 10%. However, I think I can hear the cash registers ca-ching from all the credit cards opened up under your identity.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 2:25pm
"The bloodlust of the Left is only matched by its cowardice."
That's not a special quality of the left. Why not ask how many conservative Americans have no military record (Cheney) or one that is essentially a joke (Bush)? I think besides you, I can name one other veteran (antisocialist) who is a conservative that posts to this board.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:03pm
Apparently, police violence isn't worth mentioning. I'd argue that police have done far more damage than any anarchist block.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:52pm
"...maybe we should allow them less rights than those enjoyed by fully human educated urban intellectuals..."
Finally, an idea the founding fathers would have agreed with. They called it representative government, i.e., a republic.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 6:30pm
Your narrative leaves out Al-Sadr. How convenient.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 8:19pm
Yes, Lord Byron would be a bad choice for the army, considering he died, of fever, while spending his own money helping a foreign country fight for their independence.
Maybe you could follow his example. I'm sure the Iraqi army would love to have you on board.
You are better quality troll than most of those that waste their time here. Readable, at least.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/12/2009 @ 11:27pm
but I assure you there are thousands like me. And I think most Americans, whether they oppose the war or not, know that most vets need not be ashamed of either having been duped, or willingly having volunteered to wage war against "the Iraqi people," because we did neither.
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 6:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Thanks again guy! Even if they would never realize the truth thanks for telling it! Poor fools would rather reinforce their fantasies to rationalize and justify their evil belief systems and hatreds others.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/13/2009 @ 12:11am
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
As usual the Obamanation administration clearly demonstates it's total disrespect for the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and of the "press" and KVH and the nation sees no problem with that!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/13/2009 @ 12:14am
anti-American jihadists...
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 3:16pm
Ladies and gentlemen, the 21st century Republican party.
Posted by kennyboy at 10/13/2009 @ 03:30am
anti-American jihadists...
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 3:16pm
Ladies and gentlemen, the 21st century Republican party.
Posted by kennyboy at 10/13/2009 @ 03:30am
..... then why didn't bush just say:
"we need to remove sadaam now, no matter what the cost in blood and treasure, because it is US policy"
rather than lie about WMDs, al qaeda, etc?
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 7:36pm
Here is GW Bush's Speech before the UN General Assembly made on 12 September 2002.
(Outlining the moral and HR violation factors six months before Iraq was invaded).
I've deleted all the WMD references so you can see just how much Saddam's human rights abuses, as set out in the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, et al, figured in GW Bush's motivation for the removal of Saddam from power.
All this was out there in the most public way and those who, as you do, cling to the untruth that Bush did not have Saddam's HR abuses in view as a sound moral justification for his removal, are a lazy researchers or willfully choose to remain ignorant.
"In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored."
"Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state."
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/13/2009 @ 05:19am
"In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them."
"In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to buy missile technology and military materials. He blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements, he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi citizens."
"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions."
"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions."
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/13/2009 @ 05:20am
"If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N. administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections."
"The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq. We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember. Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15 and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages."
"My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced"
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/13/2009 @ 05:20am
"-- the just demands of peace and security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power."
"Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission. The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress of our times. If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world. These nations can show by their example that honest government, and respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our time. "
"Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the power to make that stand, as well."
"Thank you very much." (Applause.)
Speech ended at 11:04am
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/13/2009 @ 05:20am
Larry, we must have some differences in definitions.
If I said "I DON'T scratch my butt" and then said "I scratch my butt once or twice every 4-6 months"....would that mean I do or DON't scratch my butt???
"Because Mask also attempts to link us to Rush's comments even when he knows we don't listen to him and hold different views."----Posted by antisocialist at 09/29/2009 @ 5:38pm>
Lose the Love/Hate, But Keep the Hope. posted by Melissa Harris-Lacewell on 09/28/2009 @ 10:22pm
"I again repeat re Rush, I don't listen to him except perhaps 1-2 hours total in a 4-6 month period."----Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:43pm
New White House Line Against Fox: It's War posted by Ari Melber on 10/11/2009 @ 10:58pm
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 07:20am
Fox News isn't worth the time or effort to fight with. They are not a News outlet they are an entertainment channel. All they have representing them in the form of political pundits are clowns. I personally was never that fond of the circus. So why would the WH even bother with them? The ignorance these people spread with their distortions and out and out lies is destroying this country. That's why it's worth the effort. Uninformed and stupid people are the only ones who bother with Fox News these days. This country has been so dumbed down by these people who view intelligence as a hindrance rather than an asset we are imploding at the seams. Their pundits are rude and obnoxious to the point where most conservatives act the same disgusting way they do. So the only impact Fox News has had on our culture is a terrible one. But, the only way to fight their terrible influence on our culture is like the one guy said in his comment. He changes the channel when he sees it on in public. I do the same thing. I tell them I am not going to set there and listen to hate that like for a second. I consider myself about people like that.
Posted by ganddw42 at 10/13/2009 @ 07:47am
I do NOT blame the individual soldiers for the things they do (or are ordered to do) during wartime. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/12/2009 @ 5:50pm
I don't either under those circumstances. But this is not "Wartime" it is an Illegal Occupation in my opinion. There was no declared war by Congress and there was no imminent threat. We were not attacked by any country, we were attacked by a relatively small number of criminals who used the tactic of terror. And the entire matter should have been handled as such.
Every soldier has sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and has the right to refuse illegal orders or commit illegal acts. These occupations are immoral and illegal in my opinion.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/13/2009 @ 08:31am
I do NOT blame the individual soldiers for the things they do (or are ordered to do) during wartime.
tell me, why were German officers imprisoned at the end of the war? Zey wuz only followink orders.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/13/2009 @ 08:42am
Anyone with good sense? They know that Fox news is nothing but big mouths that spew nothing but destructive opinions. New that is trustworthy is never reported. They have never been good for this Nation, and never will be good for knowledge, or truth in reporting. If you have one brain cell working most would realize this.
Posted by sheila60 at 10/13/2009 @ 08:42am
Every soldier has sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and has the right to refuse illegal orders or commit illegal acts.
not refusing makes them complicit and culpable.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/13/2009 @ 08:55am
tell me, why were German officers imprisoned at the end of the war? Zey wuz only followink orders.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/13/2009 @ 08:42am
That's another good point. Even when War is formally declared if someone violates the Rules of War like the Geneva Conventions for instance they can be found guilty of War Crimes and imprisioned or executed.
In these illegal occupations we not only have the basic illegality of these military actions, we also have numerous examples of War Crimes commited. It's a horrific two-fer.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/13/2009 @ 08:57am
the German officers were not accused of war crimes. their only crime was to serve their country. length of prison time was commensurate with rank.
in their case refusal was punished by death, and concentration camp for their family.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/13/2009 @ 09:21am
"I am any Soldier. I am a Pawn and a Cog in a machine. I serve the oligarchs of Whereverland and my life is disposable."
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 8:34pm
FZ, why do you hate freedom so much?
How did America get it's freedom? War
How did Europe get liberated from the Nazi and Fascist totalitarianism? War
Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 09:25am
He changes the channel when he sees it on in public. I do the same thing. I tell them I am not going to set there and listen to hate that like for a second. I consider myself about people like that.
Posted by ganddw42 at 10/13/2009 @ 07:47am
Congrats on publicly displaying and proving the fact Libs today, are thin-skinned and incapable of hearing opposing viewpoints.
I thank you, each and every time you exercise your POV by `switching' channels......we can't do w/out your help!
Posted by Happy at 10/13/2009 @ 09:33am
Alas, I have to see antisocialist's commentary if I fail to login before going to a thread.
Since antisocialist is asking about where freedom comes from, perhaps we should ask India, Estonia, Egypt, and Trinidad? Although, this wouldn't leave us with "war" as the answer, now would it?
Posted by srjenkins at 10/13/2009 @ 09:43am
FZ, why do you hate freedom so much?
How did America get it's freedom? War
How did Europe get liberated from the Nazi and Fascist totalitarianism? War-------Posted by antisocialist at 10/13/2009 @ 09:25am
Now watch...re-read Larry's post...read it again....and when I ask this question, watch how he denies what he's he's saying in it and saying to Frosty---
"So, Larry....you love war, then, don't you?"
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2009 @ 10:03am
Congrats on publicly displaying and proving the fact Libs today, are thin-skinned and incapable of hearing opposing viewpoints.Posted by Happy at 10/13/2009 @ 09:33am
There is a huge difference between "opposing viewpoints" and constant outright lies and disinformation. In any reasonable debate an opposing viewpoint is simply a discussion of various aspects of the truth. Outright lies are quickly dispensed with in real debate and the debater who persists in lying is usually scorned and loses the debate.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/13/2009 @ 10:14am
Posted by gangpapist at 10/12/2009 @ 6:42pm
I'm not quite sure what your point is. I don't think we should muzzle Fox News; they are simply spewing filth and garbage, and the fact that Americans are eating it says more about our culture than anything else.
I don't even care about "truth" because one man's truth is another man's lie.
However, I DO care about hard hitting journalism, which this country have lost. I think we lost it when TV news became more about "feeling good" and having pretty faces on TV, rather than journalists (like Helen Thomas) who ask the hard questions and put our leaders on the spot. George W Bush never met with ANY real criticism of his build up to Iraq (even though there were MILLIONS of us who objected), because the journalists were swallowing the Bush kool-aid (cherry flavored) and saying to the administration, "Thank you sir, may I have another?"
Not one single news network has balls anymore, because they are so worried about "access" to the President and congress. But what the hell good is "access" if you only put out what the Administration tells you?
Yes, I believe that Fox is a tool of the GOP, because it wants to be. They are not fair and balanced, but they do see things from their own perspective. The rest of the TV media is NOT liberal; that lie has taken hold in American culture because the Republicans have been pushing it for 30 years. It might once have been true; I don't know. But it's not now. Media is owned by the corporatists, and THEY are mostly conservative, if not neo-cons. The Liberal viewpoint is almost NEVER heard except when a Republicans states what they THINK it is.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 11:03am
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/12/2009 @ 8:05pm
Frosty - after 9/11, I cannot believe that Gore (if he had been appointed President by the Supreme Court), would have gone into Iraq like Bush went in. Not the same at all. Gore had nothing to prove by going into Iraq; Bush had to be better than daddy (and was a complete failure, even in that regard).
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 11:06am
So what. It was official US policy and law to remove Saddam Hussein since 1998. Legislation pushed by Clinton and Democrats, along with Republicans.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 7:27pm
So now you're saying Clinton did a good thing?
hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Just because the Republicans and Democrats agree on something, does not necessarily mean it's a good thing.
For a man who professes the peace of the Christ, you certainly come off as a war monger.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 11:10am
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/12/2009 @ 10:04pm
So what? I can come up with 17 reasons to pick my nose. Your argument assumes that reporters MUST simply take what the administration gives them at face value. Are you really that naive to not know that almost every administration lies?
It's called politics, sweetie.
It's a journalist's job to figure out the big lies (not just the little political ones) and expose them for what they are.
17 reasons = 17 BIG lies.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 11:17am
"Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder."
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/13/2009 @ 05:20am
Bush states the above in front of the whole world, and then does it anyway. That's despotic.
Do you think we're not intimidating through cruelty (torture) and conquest (Iraq and Afghanistan are occupied, you know, by American troops). Do you not think that we have threatened the world with mass murder (how many Iraqi civilians have died)?
How can we even call ourselves a free society when the same President who said the above, started spying on his own people illegally? Has condoned (and ordered) torture, going against every international agreement we are party to? We are neither free nor open.
Enjoy your teaparty.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 11:28am
I don't even care about "truth" because one man's truth is another man's lie. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 11:03am
That's a generalization. On the one hand facts are only debatable within a very narrow margin. For instance if I were debating Lincolns War with someone, and my adversary claimed that Lincolns Birthday was February 13, 1809 and I corrected him by stating the fact that it was really February 12, 1809, that would gain me points in the debate.
If on the other hand my opponent claimed that Lincoln was never born. And that my entire argument was false based on this outright lie and persisted in the claim, my opponent would be laughed off the stage and the debate would be over.
So ones man's truth is not always another man's lie. In order for that to happen you would have to be debating things like Religion, which cannot be proven or disproven.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/13/2009 @ 11:29am
tell me, why were German officers imprisoned at the end of the war? Zey wuz only followink orders.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/13/2009 @ 08:42am
I expected someone to bring up the Nazi example of "just following orders." I figured it would be one of the Republicans. Oh well. But if you actually read what I wrote, instead of knee jerking, you'll see I'm not being inconsistent. I wrote that every soldier MUST make a moral choice to either do or not do what he (or she) is ordered to do. That is their right as a human being; it's called free will.
However, once they make that choice, then they must bear the consequences of that choice, as we all do in life. It is not inconsistent to put German soldiers to death for participating in atrocities against Jews and others in WWII, if they are tried and found guilty of such crimes.
I would argue that any American soldier who commits atrocities in wartime (ordered or not) should also be tried and if found guilty, punished accordingly. I would also argue that the leaders, up to and including the Vice President and the President of the United States, if complicit in those acts of atrocities, should also be tried and if found guilty, punished accordingly.
How is that inconsistent with what I previously wrote?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 11:39am
Posted by chaoszen at 10/13/2009 @ 11:29am
You're right, it was a generalization. But still, in the political sense, with all the parsing of words going on, there almost isn't any "truth" anymore.
Yes, there are facts...but when your debate is against people who don't believe in objective science, but base most of their arguments upon the belief that "god is an American," then even facts don't matter much, do they? I think Faux News is a perfect example of that.
And history has proven that he who wins, gets to decide what the "facts" are.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 11:48am
The idiots who post here, like gangpapist, HAPPY and Anti to name a few are Willfully Ignorant. The worst kind. They are not uneducated. They know full well what the "Truth" is, yet they willfully distort it or deny it for reasons which are unfathomable.
At the risk of sounding simplistic, they define "Evil". To me, true Evil is knowing better but persisting in spreading Lies and Disinformation in order to tear down what others are trying to build. That's what Fox News does. And the lackeys of the Oligarchy like Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage and a host of others.
They are the true enemy. As I have said before many times.
The Enemy Is Within.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/13/2009 @ 11:52am
And history has proven that he who wins, gets to decide what the "facts" are.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 11:48am
SAD, But True...
That's why I keep fighting. The War of Ideas is the only War that counts in the end.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/13/2009 @ 11:57am
"FZ, why do you hate freedom so much?"
this is precisely the sort of question that fox news reporters ask liberals.
it's like asking a liberal "would you rather have sex with sadaam hussein?"
Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 12:06pm
Hey Mr. M., Mr. N toned down the war rhetoric a notch. Might you consider doing the same?
INITIALLY Mr. N wrote:
First, the president and his aides decide to "go to war" against Fox News
CURRENTLY it reads:
First, the president and his aides go to war with Fox News
Or justify your decision to call it "war" please: New White House Line Against Fox: It's War
I do see that the Dunn used this in reverse... accusing Fox of waging war. I would argue that this is problematic, and two wrongs... Thanks Bro.
Posted by winyahn at 10/13/2009 @ 12:09pm
Is it possible that Fox has more viewers (don't know that this is a fact) because its viewers think it does a better job of looking at our world and offering up relevant inferences? Not that it's "right" all the time, any more than any other outlet or person is "right" all the time. If it makes one feel better to think that people who disagree are simply dumb, well, enjoy that feeling, and let's enjoy a 1-term presidency.
Posted by cantyouhearmeknockin at 10/13/2009 @ 2:39pm
"Is it possible that Fox has more viewers (don't know that this is a fact) because its viewers think it does a better job of looking at our world and offering up relevant inferences?"
a fox viewer might think so, but numerous studies show fox viewers woefully misinformed, which, as you may well know, is not exactly shocking.
Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 2:43pm
Darladoon, this would be good info to have (numerous studies about viewership)--can you cite specifics?
Posted by cantyouhearmeknockin at 10/13/2009 @ 2:52pm
cantyouhearmeknockin:
google 'fox viewers misinformed study'
and you'll have a field day
Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 2:57pm
But if you actually read what I wrote,
I do NOT blame the individual soldiers for the things they do (or are ordered to do) during wartime.
this is what you wrote.
I could just as well have brought up Japanese soldiers, who were also tried for war crimes.
the question is were the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals just victor's justice or are they standards we keep?
"I would argue that any American soldier who commits atrocities in wartime (ordered or not) should also be tried and if found guilty, punished accordingly."
My Lai? ONE SOLDIER, ONE, was punished.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/13/2009 @ 3:10pm
perhaps your reading comprehension could also use a little work, Steve
the German soldiers I referred to, including my relations, were not accused of war crimes. they were punished for the uniform they wore, according to the insignia of their rank. colonels one year, generals two or more.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/13/2009 @ 3:14pm
Dear darladoon, I just saw several references for one 6-year old survey, that itself seems to be suspect. At any rate, thanks for the info.
Posted by cantyouhearmeknockin at 10/13/2009 @ 3:39pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 11:28am
No I don't. You are rather a strange fellow in that you don't seem to ask who it was that killed most of those civilians post March 2003. All sorts of nonsense has been presented by those like you who are merely playing political games or have lively but perverse imaginations.
Your comparison of what America has done in Iraq, in terms of HR abuses, with what existed in that country prior to March 2003 is an indication to me that you also have a perverse sense of morality. The present situation in Iraq compared with what existed under Saddam is like chalk and cheese.
Iraq bears comparison, like no other wars America has been involved in, with the smashing of the Axis powers in Europe and the defeat of militaristic Japan last century.
Of course with the usual deviousness of those who try to construct the flimsy case you do, you missed the easily verifiable truth that Bush did not invade Iraq only on WMD grounds but also on the basis of HR violations against which your claims of American correspondence are ludicrous and in scale and brutality pale into insignificance.
My claim, relevant to my response to D's assertion, born out by the facts, is that Ms D and others simply are not telling the truth and fool none, who have read Bush's pre-war speeches and are doing nothing more than singing to the credulous and self deluded. Which it seems evident includes you.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/13/2009 @ 5:09pm
FAUX SPEWS is really meant, like the new con repubs here, to sow the seeds of confusion, mistrust, doubt and hate. (Better to manipulate you my little dearie.)
An analogy: Understanding that it's against the law to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre (when there is no actual fire), FAUX SPEWS began by whispering the possibility of a fire, just so a few people next to them could hear it.
Then they got a little louder, explaining to a few more in the theatre how the smell of it really was smoke, even possibly an invisible mushroom cloud that may make it too late!
People with an apparent attention disorder, listened to FAUX SPEWS instead of focussing on what they had paid to be there to do and began to fear the fire, convinced it was happening all around them.
And of course they started trying to convince others around them that the theatre was on fire. By then, to the FAUX SPEWS following, it really existed.
And their original intent to suspend disbelief and relax, of course, morphed to becoming an ultimate hatred of why they came to the theatre in the first place-- per the FAUX SPEWS following had also grown to hate the others actually still able to watch the movie-- had shushed them; not believing in their non-existent fire...
Now FAUX SPEWS plays in every theatre-- yelling FIRE with impunity.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/13/2009 @ 5:47pm
"you missed the easily verifiable truth that Bush did not invade Iraq only on WMD grounds but also on the basis of HR violations against which your claims of American correspondence are ludicrous and in scale and brutality pale into insignificance"
well, wasn't that an extraordinary piece of revisionist history. and the comparison to the defeat of germany and japan really takes the cake.
Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 5:51pm
It's a journalist's job to figure out the big lies (not just the little political ones) and expose them for what they are.
17 reasons = 17 BIG lies.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/13/2009 @ 11:17am
Again, what was Helen Thomas trying to do with that question?
Get to the truth, as you claim?
As if they would somehow whither under her piercing, obstinate glare and mumble, "Damn, she's not buying the whole human rights, WMD possibilities, regional stability, terror supporting, cease-fire violations, and U.N. defying reasons we've stated for the historical record..."
"Okay. Busted. Look, it's all about oil. Even Bill Clinton was lying when he talked about Saddam's WMDs. He was setting this up for us. Sure, we could get that oil back into the world oil market by just lifting the sanctions, but' we'd prefer to have a shooting war where a bunch of brown people get killed. We like that sort of thing. We're going to go in and hand the oil fields to American oil companies [actually, we handed the oil production back to the Iraqis in 2004, IIRC]. We're also doing it because Bush has this "daddy" thing going. Weird. And let's not forget Halliburton. Got to pay those guys. We should've known better than to try and fool an operator like you, Thomas."
No, that's not what she was trying to do. What she was doing was injecting editorial opinion into what should be objective journalism. The truth is found in investigative reporting. Not asking loaded questions from the comfort of a chair. What you are doing there is not looking for truth, but attempting to influence public opinion.
Once again, liberal emotionalism and conspiracy theory triumphs over Occam's Razor.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/13/2009 @ 6:28pm
also on the basis of HR violations
this is a lie.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/13/2009 @ 6:52pm
well, wasn't that an extraordinary piece of revisionist history. and the comparison to the defeat of germany and japan really takes the cake.
Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 5:51pm
Ms D, revisionist? That is a lazy person's way of saying shut up because I now realise I didn't have a clue what I was talking about. That's OK as none of us like to be made to look foolish.
Revisionist though? Really? I'm not sure if you're on speaking terms with historiography but in this context you must mean a reinterpretation of "orthodox" historical evidence. Presumably the "orthodoxy" you hold to, is that Bush never mentioned Saddam's HR violations as a reason for the removal of that Regime.
Now that "orthodoxy" might be very pervasive but I have already shown, with irrefutable evidence, that it is based on a lie.
So how about you quit trying to muddy the waters with an irrelevant and technical term and deal with the evidence that indicates you have been caught out running with a whopper (that's what we call big lies in this neck of the woods).
It is sometimes said over here that America did not get into WW2 until it was dragged into it kicking and screaming. I'm not sure I subscribe to that view (we are very grateful for America's involvement in the Pacific/Asian aspect of it) however that possible reluctance is one reason that many Americans, it seems to me, are the last to understand the moral dimensions of WW2 as well as of Iraq so I don't particularly want that cake but being a gentleman I wont tell you what you can do with it or with your opinion on WW2/Iraq equivalence in moral terms.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/13/2009 @ 7:33pm
also on the basis of HR violations
this is a lie.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/13/2009 @ 6:52pm
Declaring something over and over again to be a "lie" is not the same thing as actually demonstrating and exposing it as a lie using credible source citations, etc.
It is just restating a personally held opinion.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/13/2009 @ 7:42pm
lrjones,
cheney said that iraq and al qaeda were connected. that was a lie.
cheney/bush said that hussein had WMDs. again, a lie.
rice said there would be mushroom clouds. lie.
wolfowitz said oil would pay for it. lie.
rumsfeld said, it would last 6 days, maybe 6 weeks, i doubt 6 months. like.
the HR violations were well known, but were never foregrounded (they were mentioned) as one of the primary reasons for the invasion, and if they were, the public would never have gotten on board.
but, it doesn't matter. there are A LOT of HR violations in other countries where we haven't invaded.
the point is that HR violations, in and of themselves, were not sufficient justification for spending 2 trillion, killing 1 million, losing 5,000 of our own, etc, etc....
anyone who still supports the iraq invasion/occupation is widely considered to be wrong.
Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 9:14pm
cheney/bush said that hussein had WMDs. again, a lie.
Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 9:14pm
Because it's just not possible that they were simply...wrong. Or misled.
Again, Saddam admitted during interrogation that he had misled the world as to his possession of WMDs. He very much wanted it to seem like he might have them.
Additionally, if Bush was merely restating the same thing Clinton and Democrats were saying in the late 1990s about WMDs, does that make Clinton and those Democrats liars too?
Or merely wrong?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/13/2009 @ 9:49pm
citizen-carrier,
who was pushing for war in 2002-2003?
i don't think it was clinton or the democrats.
sure, some of the democrats, including clinton, jumped on board, but they certainly didn't propose the idea of invading iraq. and even if they did-----did it make it a good idea? of course not.
come on, citizen, just admit: iraq was a catastrophic mistake on bush's part. and it is his primary legacy.
Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 10:06pm
and "catastrophic" is putting it mildly.
2 trillion cost 5,000+ dead soldiers 25,000+ injured soldiers 500,000 dead iraqis 2 million displaced 2 million injured
Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 10:09pm
Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 9:14pm
Big whoop. Politicians lie. So what's your point? How about listing Obama's lies now. Grow up.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/14/2009 @ 12:16am
"Big whoop. Politicians lie. So what's your point? How about listing Obama's lies now. Grow up."
please name one obama lie which as cost 500,000 lives
thank you
--dd
Posted by darladoon at 10/14/2009 @ 12:18am
the point is that HR violations, in and of themselves, were not sufficient justification for spending 2 trillion, killing 1 million, losing 5,000 of our own, etc, etc....
Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 9:14pm
My claim is that the HR violations of the Saddam regime perpetrated (mostly) in Iraq are sufficient moral justification for the war.
Even had the intelligence that was later proved to be wrong, been correct, in respect of Saddam's WMD, there would have been moral justification if and only if Iraq had the means of delivery to harm or kill Americans in their homeland. As he did not have that delivery capability that was, I suggest, not a moral argument to remove his regime from power. That this was overlooked at the time was understandable given the national/world almost paranoia that followed 9/11.
Given the WMD intelligence was accepted at the time as being accurate that leaves us with those states that surrounded Iraq, into which it had fired missiles that would be susceptible to harm from the supposed WMD. That is a valid moral argument that is also touched upon in ILA1998 but it is a lesser one that Americans may or may not have baulked at.
That leaves us with the HR violations as the only moral argument that could be used to justify removing the Saddam regime from power.
This is where the Iraq Liberation Act that Bill Clinton signed into law in 1998 is so relevant and indicative of how seriously Congress regarded Iraq's HR violations.
It is important to note that this act, which made the new policy of the USA the removal of Saddam from power, was constructed in an unemotional pre-9/11 climate. And though there is reference to his WMD that document majors on Saddam's HR violations as sufficient moral justification for his removal from power.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/14/2009 @ 05:07am
who was pushing for war in 2002-2003?
i don't think it was clinton or the democrats.
sure, some of the democrats, including clinton, jumped on board, but they certainly didn't propose the idea of invading iraq. and even if they did-----did it make it a good idea? of course not.
come on, citizen, just admit: iraq was a catastrophic mistake on bush's part. and it is his primary legacy.
Posted by darladoon at 10/13/2009 @ 10:06pm
Ah, but see what you are doing? You are not addressing the fact that if anyone saying Iraq had WMDs was lying, then it makes the Clinton Administration liars too.
Your partisan formula reads something like this.
"Bush and Cheney lied about Iraqi WMDs, Clinton wasn't lying about WMDs. It didn't matter if Clinton was lying or wrong about WMDs (he wasn't, but Bush was), because he was never prepared to actually do anything about it.
Am I reading it correctly? We must condemn Bush because of the two men, he considered it his obligation to eliminate what he believed to be a threat.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/14/2009 @ 05:18am
I think that document and America's implementation of its goals is an example of American altruism at its very finest. The subsequent great cost to America is a measure of that altruism.
Just wars as well as being defined by motives and objectives are also constrained by proportionality and that is why those, like you, are concerned with the cost in lives, particularly of Iraqis.
My suggestion is that you should divide that 500,000 by 79 (the number of months since March 2003). That gives us over 6,300 per month, which if you care to do a bit of research is far more that was ever killed per month in the bad post Samara Mosque bombing year in which all previous monthly figures were surpassed At present and for the last year or so the monthly average is in the low hundreds.
Iraq Body Count (which has an anti-Iraq war stance) I think is at about 100,000 which is more in accord with the total one gets when adding the monthly media totals. That equates to an average of about 1250 a month until now.
Those greater estimates like your 500,000 are also trying to estimate those dying as a result of all the factors such as available clean water, sanitation and nutritional issues. That is a problematic approach particularly when one considers the reported terrible effect the pre-war sanctions had on the health, particularly of children. I would suggest that that effect existing at "month zero" is likely to have not been properly accounted for in some of the more lavish and strongly partisan post invasion analysis and thus does not belong in the post invasion category at all.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/14/2009 @ 05:40am
Nothing says new con repubs come out and play like FAUX SPEWS...
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/14/2009 @ 07:24am
I'm really not sure what all the problem is with Fox. You simply have to know when to watch:
The Shepstone segment actually spends a good amount of time on hard news, and its diverse in nature. When O'Reilly comes on, I just turn it off, although I do watch him, and Olbermann on MSNBC,periodically for a good lauggh or to get a take on the extremes of thought,(although its pretty much preordained what both will say on an issue before they opens their mouths).
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/14/2009 @ 08:29am
I don't know of any country, which went to war against another country, because of that nation's human rights violations. never happened.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/14/2009 @ 08:40am
I don't know of any country, which went to war against another country, because of that nation's human rights violations. never happened.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/14/2009 @ 08:40am
Except for when we bombed Serbia because of "ethnic cleansing"?
Of course, it would be simplistic to make such a declaration, because the bombing of Serbia was about more than just ethnic cleansing.
It was basically to prop up NATO's image after Milosevic told them to get stuffed. It was either act, or make NATO look like a paper tiger.
So, in the parlance of Helen Thomas we "Bombed Serbian people because of human rights abuses and to prop up NATO's image."
Of course, it would be foolish to try and boil down Iraq to just one reason as well. Military actions are complex, and rarely done for just one reason.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/14/2009 @ 09:16am
I don't know of any country, which went to war against another country, because of that nation's human rights violations. never happened.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/14/2009 @ 08:40am
Except for when we bombed Serbia because of "ethnic cleansing"?
Of course, it would be simplistic to make such a declaration, because the bombing of Serbia was about more than just ethnic cleansing.
It was basically to prop up NATO's image after Milosevic told them to get stuffed. It was either act, or make NATO look like a paper tiger.
So, in the parlance of Helen Thomas we "Bombed Serbian people because of human rights abuses and to prop up NATO's image."
Of course, it would be foolish to try and boil down Iraq to just one reason as well. Military actions are complex, and rarely done for just one reason.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/14/2009 @ 09:16am
"Given the WMD intelligence was accepted at the time as being accurate"
no it wasn't. it was accepted as "incredibly specious" but not "accurate" mr. propagandist.
"Those greater estimates like your 500,000 are also trying to estimate those dying as a result of all the factors such as available clean water, sanitation and nutritional issues"
which were directly caused by the invasion, so indeed, why shouldn't they be tallied?
lrjones, i really don't have time to have this conversation with you. the iraq invasion was a blatant example of overt, imperial aggression against a sovereign country. HR violations are never a sufficient justification for invasion/occupation. never. if so, then we really should have invaded sudan and china and north korea and iran and pakistan first.
you are an extremist, propagandist, and i simply have other matters to attend to, good day. dd.
Posted by darladoon at 10/14/2009 @ 10:11am
So, darladoon, which is it?
Either Bush and Clinton both lied about WMDs during their presidencies, or they didn't.
You cannot give Clinton a pass for saying Saddam had and was pursuing WMDs, and then say Bush later lied when he said the same thing.
So a few things have to happen here. Either you declare both of them liars, with Clinton getting a pass because everyone knew he wasn't going to act on that information (false or otherwise) OR you can declare both of them to have been inaccurate. Wrong. Misled. Or doing the best they could with the limited intell available.
So, do you abandon the "Bush lied about WMDs" rhetoric, or do you continue with it while overtly pretending that no Democrat ever said a similar thing?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/14/2009 @ 11:55am
So, darladoon, which is it?
Either Bush and Clinton both lied about WMDs during their presidencies, or they didn't.
You cannot give Clinton a pass for saying Saddam had and was pursuing WMDs, and then say Bush later lied when he said the same thing.
So a few things have to happen here. Either you declare both of them liars, with Clinton getting a pass because everyone knew he wasn't going to act on that information (false or otherwise) OR you can declare both of them to have been inaccurate. Wrong. Misled. Or doing the best they could with the limited intell available.
So, do you abandon the "Bush lied about WMDs" rhetoric, or do you continue with it while overtly pretending that no Democrat ever said a similar thing?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/14/2009 @ 11:55am
Posted by darladoon at 10/14/2009 @ 10:11am
The invasion of Iraq was unconstitutional. It is as simple as that.
Posted by ginza00 at 10/14/2009 @ 11:55am
"HR violations are never a sufficient justification for invasion/occupation. never. if so, then we really should have invaded sudan and china and north korea and iran and pakistan first."
Posted by darladoon at 10/14/2009 @ 10:11am
No, not by themselves they aren't. I agree. But when you combine them with several other reasons, such as violations of the cease-fire agreement, you can make a pretty good case for resumption of hostilities.
"lrjones, i really don't have time to have this conversation with you. the iraq invasion was a blatant example of overt, imperial aggression against a sovereign country."
Posted by darladoon at 10/14/2009 @ 10:11am
The Iraq liberation was a blatant example of resumption of hostilities against an unelected, dictatorial regime that was itself under "probation" for acts of imperial aggression and terror against it's neighbors. Remember those SCUD missiles fired at Israel in the Gulf War?
And even if you strip out the WMDs, Iraq had been guilty of violating that "probation" for most of 10 years.
Iraq is now a REAL sovereign country with a real, legitimate sovereign government chosen by the citizenry. Just as Germany was once Hitler and his goons were disposed of. And yes, a lot of Germans died in that too.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/14/2009 @ 12:03pm
"HR violations are never a sufficient justification for invasion/occupation. never. if so, then we really should have invaded sudan and china and north korea and iran and pakistan first."
Posted by darladoon at 10/14/2009 @ 10:11am
No, not by themselves they aren't. I agree. But when you combine them with several other reasons, such as violations of the cease-fire agreement, you can make a pretty good case for resumption of hostilities.
"lrjones, i really don't have time to have this conversation with you. the iraq invasion was a blatant example of overt, imperial aggression against a sovereign country."
Posted by darladoon at 10/14/2009 @ 10:11am
The Iraq liberation was a blatant example of resumption of hostilities against an unelected, dictatorial regime that was itself under "probation" for acts of imperial aggression and terror against it's neighbors. Remember those SCUD missiles fired at Israel in the Gulf War?
And even if you strip out the WMDs, Iraq had been guilty of violating that "probation" for most of 10 years.
Iraq is now a REAL sovereign country with a real, legitimate sovereign government chosen by the citizenry. Just as Germany was once Hitler and his goons were disposed of. And yes, a lot of Germans died in that too.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/14/2009 @ 12:03pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/13/2009 @ 5:09pm
So, I'm "devious" and "perverse." Hmmm. Because I dare to questions Bush's motives for beginning a war of choice?
All Bush's speech to the UN did was give "Human rights" cover to the fact that he wanted to invade Iraq from before he was president because he and the other neocons thought that Daddy didn't go far enough during Iraq War I. If W really cared about human rights, then why did he start spying on the American people illegally?
I am not saying that Saddam was a good man; he did horrible things to his people, but he was contained and had had nothing to do with 9/11. (and I am SO tired of conservatives accusing liberals of being Saddam-lovers...get over yourselves!) It has cost us over a trillion dollars to "win" the war of choice in Iraq, a war which we haven't really won AND which distracted us from going after al qaeda. Do you TRULY believe the only way to deal with Saddam was to invade a country that had never attacked us? Yes, he stated he wanted to attack us, but as we now know, that was just a belligerent dictator spewing forth. Pretty much every dictator spews anti-American crap; should we invade North Korea, or Myanmar?
Using your logic, we should. I guess that just makes you another Republican war monger, just like anti and the rest.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/14/2009 @ 12:42pm
Of course, it would be foolish to try and boil down Iraq to just one reason as well. Military actions are complex, and rarely done for just one reason.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/14/2009 @ 09:16am
The one reason we attacked Iraq is really easy. Oil.
HR violations, WMDs, mushroom clouds, Saddam being a bad man, etc. were all just a cover for what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld really wanted. Why do you think Cheney's secret energy policy meetings are STILL secret? They wanted (and promised) oil contracts for all the major oil companies...and guess what? They got 'em.
So in those terms, I guess we won the Iraq war. Now all we have to do is keep the Iraqi people down and steal their oil right from under their feet. And it all only cost a trillion or so dollars, a few thousand American lives, a hundred thousand or so destroyed Iraqi lives, a few hundred thousand more displaced Iraqi lives and the tearing apart of the Iraqi infrastructure.
All in all, a good deal for the neocons who "planned" the war and blamed it on al qaeda terrorists who weren't even IN Iraq when the war started.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/14/2009 @ 12:58pm
"Yes, he stated he wanted to attack us, but as we now know, that was just a belligerent dictator spewing forth."
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/14/2009 @ 12:42pm
Yes, as we NOW know. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it? Kind of like having a belligerent dictator pretend he was hiding WMDs for 10 years. Pretty hard to tell if he's bluffing or telling the truth. Considering how many people you can kill with a large sandwich bag filled with anhrax seeded from a Cessna over a large city, some Presidents take those words more seriously than others.
"...he wanted to invade Iraq from before he was president because he and the other neocons thought that Daddy didn't go far enough during Iraq War I."
Clearly, they didn't. Because Saddam's regime was put on probation and then proceeded to violate it. Plot the assasination of a former U.S. President. Move troops into areas restricted by the cease fire agreement. Offer bounties for allied planes shot down in no fly zones established to protect Kurds and Shia. And yes, pursue restricted weapon technology such as missiles with a range greater than 150 miles. Violate at least 23 of 27 Security Council sanctions.
"Pretty much every dictator spews anti-American crap; should we invade North Korea, or Myanmar?"
Too late now for North Korea. They already have nukes. That's why it is a good idea to stop totalitarian regimes from getting them in the first place. And Myanmar? True lovers of liberty continue to refer to it as "Burma". It was renamed "Myanmar" by it's brutal, unelected, murderous government. Calling it Burma is a simple way to highlight that regime's lack of legitimacy. The Burmese people were not asked if they wanted the name change. Had no voice in it.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/14/2009 @ 1:13pm
"Yes, he stated he wanted to attack us, but as we now know, that was just a belligerent dictator spewing forth."
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/14/2009 @ 12:42pm
Yes, as we NOW know. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it? Kind of like having a belligerent dictator pretend he was hiding WMDs for 10 years. Pretty hard to tell if he's bluffing or telling the truth. Considering how many people you can kill with a large sandwich bag filled with anhrax seeded from a Cessna over a large city, some Presidents take those words more seriously than others.
"...he wanted to invade Iraq from before he was president because he and the other neocons thought that Daddy didn't go far enough during Iraq War I."
Clearly, they didn't. Because Saddam's regime was put on probation and then proceeded to violate it. Plot the assasination of a former U.S. President. Move troops into areas restricted by the cease fire agreement. Offer bounties for allied planes shot down in no fly zones established to protect Kurds and Shia. And yes, pursue restricted weapon technology such as missiles with a range greater than 150 miles. Violate at least 23 of 27 Security Council sanctions.
"Pretty much every dictator spews anti-American crap; should we invade North Korea, or Myanmar?"
Too late now for North Korea. They already have nukes. That's why it is a good idea to stop totalitarian regimes from getting them in the first place. And Myanmar? True lovers of liberty continue to refer to it as "Burma". It was renamed "Myanmar" by it's brutal, unelected, murderous government. Calling it Burma is a simple way to highlight that regime's lack of legitimacy. The Burmese people were not asked if they wanted the name change. Had no voice in it.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/14/2009 @ 1:13pm
If W really cared about human rights, then why did he start spying on the American people illegally?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/14/2009 @ 12:58pm
Couple of things here. First, I'm guessing Bush believed that you must first actually be alive in order to enjoy your human rights. Not blasted in a shopping mall by a bomb vest, burned to death in your office, or shot down in the streets by Jihadists. So he made it easier to monitor the communications of people suspected of being in contact with terrorists.
And as a result, there have been no significant, successful terrorist attacks since then.
Second, if he was going to "illegally spy" on us...do you suppose he'd have announced his intention to do so? He was exercising war powers actually quite tame compared to those exercised by Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/14/2009 @ 1:31pm
If W really cared about human rights, then why did he start spying on the American people illegally?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/14/2009 @ 12:58pm
Couple of things here. First, I'm guessing Bush believed that you must first actually be alive in order to enjoy your human rights. Not blasted in a shopping mall by a bomb vest, burned to death in your office, or shot down in the streets by Jihadists. So he made it easier to monitor the communications of people suspected of being in contact with terrorists.
And as a result, there have been no significant, successful terrorist attacks since then.
Second, if he was going to "illegally spy" on us...do you suppose he'd have announced his intention to do so? He was exercising war powers actually quite tame compared to those exercised by Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/14/2009 @ 1:31pm
The ultimate goal of FoxNews is NOT to deliver "fair and balanced" news, but to actively advocate for government policies that would disproportionately favor corporate interest over the interest of the American people. FoxNews is dedicated to the promotion of hatred and the de-legitimization of our president. Fox will only report exactly what it's partisan viewers want to believe….that's not news….that's indoctrination.
Posted by chitown639 at 10/14/2009 @ 1:51pm
The reality is that Rupert Murdoch discovered a heretofore untapped and unacknowledged little niche market for his programming.
That little niche market being roughly half of American public opinion. Fox News is a business, just as any of the other networks.
Such as NBC/MSNBC, a subsidiary of General Electric...which stands to make a lot of money from Obama's taxpayer-funded green wind power technology initiatives.
But I don't suppose that would color their coverage of Obama's Administration, would it?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/14/2009 @ 2:08pm
The reality is that Rupert Murdoch discovered a heretofore untapped and unacknowledged little niche market for his programming.
That little niche market being roughly half of American public opinion. Fox News is a business, just as any of the other networks.
Such as NBC/MSNBC, a subsidiary of General Electric...which stands to make a lot of money from Obama's taxpayer-funded green wind power technology initiatives.
But I don't suppose that would color their coverage of Obama's Administration, would it?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/14/2009 @ 2:08pm
Posted by chitown639 at 10/14/2009 @ 1:51pm
What foolishness. Fox News is owned by the same Fabian interests that own CNN. Do you think the people in power are stupid? They created Fox News and control all media. Think about it, what better way is there to control your opposition than to ACTUALLY BE your opposition?
Look up Hegelian Dialectic. Think about this. Congress authorized the invasion of Iraq. Obama unites with McCain to gift 700,000 million dollars ($700B) to Wall Street. Government Treasury heads all have strong ties to Goldman Sachs and Wall Street in general. My god, let's not even go into the Fed. Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense in Bush's cabinet runs off to head the IMF. Osama Bin Laden remains at large. Two unconstitutional wars expand federal power and erode our liberties.
All while you squabble about "Faux News" being biased and accuse them of indoctrination? You are useful idiots.
Posted by ginza00 at 10/14/2009 @ 2:18pm
Now all we have to do is keep the Iraqi people down and steal their oil right from under their feet.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/14/2009 @ 12:58pm
Well, here on the Iraq Oil Ministry website, it lists all the oil companies currently BUYING oil from Iraq.
http://tinyurl.com/detspu
Out of 26 buyers, 5 are American-owned oil companies. The price we pay the Iraqis is about $68 a barrel.
That's market price. Hardly stealing.
So on what do you base your contention that we are "stealing" the oil? Intuition?
Talks are underway for foreign oil companies to develop Iraqi oil fields. In other words, Chevron isn't there right now doing it. We have to negotiate with the Iraqi government first.
Again, a curious way to go about "stealing" something, don't you think? Get the permission of the victim first?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/14/2009 @ 2:24pm
Now all we have to do is keep the Iraqi people down and steal their oil right from under their feet.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/14/2009 @ 12:58pm
Well, here on the Iraq Oil Ministry website, it lists all the oil companies currently BUYING oil from Iraq.
http://tinyurl.com/detspu
Out of 26 buyers, 5 are American-owned oil companies. The price we pay the Iraqis is about $68 a barrel.
That's market price. Hardly stealing.
So on what do you base your contention that we are "stealing" the oil? Intuition?
Talks are underway for foreign oil companies to develop Iraqi oil fields. In other words, Chevron isn't there right now doing it. We have to negotiate with the Iraqi government first.
Again, a curious way to go about "stealing" something, don't you think? Get the permission of the victim first?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/14/2009 @ 2:24pm
"And as a result, there have been no significant, successful terrorist attacks since then."
Such a canard. I am so tired of Republicans stating that due to their illegal spying on American citizens (ALL American citizens - which is what makes it illegal - not just those "suspected" of having terrorist ties) that we haven't had another attack...EXCEPT THE BIGGEST ONE IN AMERICAN HISTORY BECAUSE W WAS TOO BUSY ON VACATION TO READ A MEMO. You guys continually tout Bush's record in "keeping us safe" that you always seem to forget that 9/11 happened on his watch.
"Second, if he was going to "illegally spy" on us...do you suppose he'd have announced his intention to do so? He was exercising war powers actually quite tame compared to those exercised by Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR."
He didn't "announce" it. He was FORCED to acknowledge it after it was publicly exposed in the media. Then he tried (and succeeded) to make it illegal to prosecute anyone involved in the illegal actions in the first place. If it was legal when he did it, why would he then make it illegal to prosecute himself and the others in the telecom industry who complied with it?
What have you guys got against the FISA court anyway? It already allows for domestic spying (you know, like on people "suspected" of having terrorist ties), you just have to justify it to a secret court within 3 days of the beginning of the spying. Which is exactly what Bush and Co. DIDN'T want to do. They never felt they had to justify ANYTHING they did, which is why MOST of what they did was ILLEGAL. You guys had problems with Clinton's penis, but evidently no problems with illegal spying on Americans. Makes you a supporter of traitorous actions in my book.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/14/2009 @ 2:45pm
It appears to me that both the White House and the public do not seem to have the ability to differentiate between news and commentary. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and all the other talking heads are not news journalists. They are partisan pundits who are expressing their subjective opinions about politics, politicians and political issues.
For God sakes, Matthews and Olbermann were relieved of their jobs by MSNBC they were so outrageously pro Obama during pre-election coverage. Of course, instead of being a little embarrassed by that, they wear it as a badge of courage. Kind of like all the people who bragged about being on the Nixon enemies list.
I watch them all most of the time. And although I consider myself a Liberal, I think O'Reilly's show is the most interesting and Olbermann's the most boring. O'Reilly continuously has people on who disagree with him or a couple of people who disagree with each other. There is a certain amount of debate and I like it when O'Reilly says to someone, "Tell me where I am wrong" and "I'll let you have the last word". Maddow will also have someone on occasionally who disagrees with her and will give them the opportunity to, "Talk me down". Even Hannity who no longer has Colmes to debate him puts people on who disagree with him. By contrast, in the 3 years I have watched Olbermann he has never put anyone on his show who is not there to kiss his ass. His show is one full hour of ranting about Bush, Republicans and Conservatives. Whether you agree with that or not, night after night it is boring, boring, boring. And Olbermann is probably the brightest of all the pundits. But his show stinks
Posted by bean22 at 10/14/2009 @ 2:45pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/14/2009 @ 2:45pm
Another lost soul playing the blame game without his eye on the ball. The purpose of the War on Terror is to enhance government power, not simply the result. And I don't see Obama reducing the powers of the Federal Government, do you?
You also launch into the myth that Clinton's impeachment was about sex. It was about the President lying under oath.
How are you to be taken seriously when your truth has to have a "side"?
Posted by ginza00 at 10/14/2009 @ 2:55pm
Again, a curious way to go about "stealing" something, don't you think? Get the permission of the victim first?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/14/2009 @ 2:24pm
And how much of our taxpayers' dollars were used to "get permission" from a government that we created? About a trillion, I'd say. Not to mention a few thousand American soldiers' lives.
But evidently, you think that's a good deal to get $68 dollar a barrel of oil from Iraq. And isn't it interesting that on the site you listed, the price of oil from Iraq has gone up pretty steadily SINCE the agreement was signed (back at about $30/ a barrel) and it's now at $68 a barrel. I guess all those oil companies are just pretty lucky, eh? Lucky that they got contracts after America spent a trillion dollars to get a government set up to actually give them those contracts. Wish my luck were that good.
Just curious...when is the Iraq war going to start paying for itself, like we were promised by Bush's Administration? When do we get our trillion dollars back in free oil?
Oh, but THAT would be socialism, now wouldn't it?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/14/2009 @ 2:57pm
The previous post was cut off for being too verbose. So I just wanted to add that people should see the difference between actual news shows and partisan commentary.
Fox leans to the right even on their news shows. CNN leans to the left even on their news shows. The right criticizes Republicans reluctantly but Democrats with relish. The left criticizes Democrats reluctantly but Republicans with relish. But the White House should not be boycotting Fox News; only the Fox pundits. An old politician once told me, "Never get into a pissing contest with a skunk. You ain't gonna win".
Just as an afterthought: I think Glen Beck is having a nervous breakdown. His ego is on steroids and he has gone over the edge. Time for him to go, regardless of his ratings. He has become a danger to himself and to Obama.
Posted by bean22 at 10/14/2009 @ 3:03pm
Another lost soul playing the blame game without his eye on the ball. The purpose of the War on Terror is to enhance government power, not simply the result. And I don't see Obama reducing the powers of the Federal Government, do you?
How are you to be taken seriously when your truth has to have a "side"?
Posted by ginza00 at 10/14/2009 @ 2:55pm
Hmmm. I actually agree with you "The purpose of the War on Terror is to enhance government power, not simply the result" and so I'm a lost soul?
Obama CAN'T reduce the powers of the Federal government right now, because to do so would be the end of America. You know we're in a huge job-losing recession, right? Do you WANT 350 million people to lose their jobs?
While I don't necessarily buy into your argument about the gloom and doom you prophesy, I am of the opinion that while there may or may not be secret "powers" running the world, the folks down on the ground like me have to do what we can to stop it. Nothing I do can stop the oligarchy, but if I continue to express my views about illegal activities that go against our Constitution and the idiots who run our media, then I feel like I am doing my little bit to make the world better for everyone.
While that might make me a fool in your eyes, I couldn't really care less. BTW, my truth doesn't have to have a "side." My truth has to be based in a reality that I choose to live in, not yours. I don't hate conservatives, nor do I love all Democrats. I am a proud Liberal because at this moment in time and space, they more closely align to what I believe is justice for as many people as possible, without being prejudicial or judgmental based on some outdated religious concept of an old white man sitting on a cloud, watching our every movement.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/14/2009 @ 3:16pm
"Obama CAN'T reduce the powers of the Federal government right now, because to do so would be the end of America. You know we're in a huge job-losing recession, right? Do you WANT 350 million people to lose their jobs? "
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/14/2009 @ 3:16pm
I'm just not seeing the cause and effect relationship of government becoming less intrusive/restrictive/regulatory/redistributive and "the end of America". A very convincing case can be made that government power used in this manner prolongs economic hardships because it interferes with the self-correcting mechanisms of the market. Unprofitable, inefficient concerns pass away. Government tends to throw good money after bad. Such as the whisperings now that another stimulus should focus on giving tax cuts or assistance to businesses that haven't been profitable in a long time. Nothing good will come from that.
Nor would 350 million people lose their jobs...for a couple of reasons....
Firstly, we don't have 350 million Americans. It's more like 306 million, and many of them seniors or kids who already aren't working.
Secondly, American power and prosperity was created under conditions of far less government power than we see today. Perhaps it is time for us to rediscover those concepts...
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/14/2009 @ 3:44pm
But evidently, you think that's a good deal to get $68 dollar a barrel of oil from Iraq. And isn't it interesting that on the site you listed, the price of oil from Iraq has gone up pretty steadily SINCE the agreement was signed (back at about $30/ a barrel) and it's now at $68 a barrel.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/14/2009 @ 2:57pm
Let me get this straight. You complain that we are stealing Iraqi oil right from under their feet, are then confronted with the fact we are actually buying it from them at the current market price, and are now complaining about that?
Does this mean you are backing away from the whole "stealing" thing? That you're now complaining that we aren't getting the oil as reimbursement? That we might even be justified in taking it as wereguild? Wouldn't taking oil away, even at cheaper prices, still be a blow to the Iraqi economy? An economy that is still 80% dependent on oil revenues [hence our decision to protect oil refineries rather than museums]?
Would you feel better if wars actually did pay for themselves by seizure of other people's property and livelihood?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/14/2009 @ 3:56pm
"I am so tired of Republicans stating that due to their illegal spying on American citizens (ALL American citizens - which is what makes it illegal - not just those "suspected" of having terrorist ties) that we haven't had another attack..."
Bush spied on ALL American citizens? How? How many phone calls did you make today? I made 4 or 5. Considering there are several million Americans, how many intelligence officers would it take to monitor, oh, a billion or so telephone calls a day? It isn't possible to do that. By pure pragmatism, you would have to limit your monitoring solely to people you suspect of collusion with terrorists. There isn't the manpower to do otherwise.
In reality, the last President who even came close to spying on "all" Americans was Clinton, with the Carnivore and Echelon email monitoring programs. And oh how the liberals howled when that stuff was revealed!
"...EXCEPT THE BIGGEST ONE IN AMERICAN HISTORY BECAUSE W WAS TOO BUSY ON VACATION TO READ A MEMO. You guys continually tout Bush's record in "keeping us safe" that you always seem to forget that 9/11 happened on his watch."
The decision, the planning, the recruiting, the financing, the communication and the logistics happened mostly on Clinton's watch. As did the first attack on the World Trade Center. And let's not forget the measures his admin took to make it harder for the FBI and CIA to collaborate to detect plans like this. Had Bush implemented such spying early and caught the hijackers before they murdered 3000 people, what then would be your opinion?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/14/2009 @ 4:14pm
"Bush spied on ALL American citizens? How? How many phone calls did you make today?"
It's called data mining and you don't need manpower to do it. And if you haven't heard of it, please consult your local telecommunications company. With one or two exceptions, all of the major telecom companies participated at the behest of the President and his administration post 9/11. Do you actually READ, or only accept what Fox News tells you?
Oh, and nice try with trying to blame Clinton for 9/11. FYI, they CAUGHT the people who did the first WTC bombing, which did take place under Clinton's watch. Took 'em about a year afterwards and he's still in jail. They did it through excellent police work, and not a war. I'm curious, have they caught OBL "dead or alive" yet? Or was that just more bluster from a President who rode in a jet to land on an aircraft carrier to announce "Mission Accomplished" about 5 years too soon?
If you believe that doing something illegal (spying on the American people) prior to 9/11 could have possibly caught the perpetrators of the acts of that horrendous day, then you are not a true Citizen of this country. It is not within the President's power to do ANYTHING illegal and if you think he should, then you are not a true American, but a totalitarian, just like Anti. And BTW, since Clinton told Bush that OBL was the PRIMARY problem America was facing when he (Bush) entered office, then why didn't he DO anything about OBL until AFTER 9/11?
I'll tell you why, because W didn't care about OBL, he only cared about Saddam, who had no nukes, no WMDs, a faltering economy (since we had the no fly zones, etc.), and a shell of a military. He just wanted to get Saddam because he could prove to Daddy that he could do something Daddy didn't.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/14/2009 @ 5:22pm
Republicans find refuge in FoxNews, because the network consistently reassures its viewers and justifies many on the right's initial gut feeling of fear and outrage at the prospects of a black man being elected president. Many Republicans are insanely angry because they feel that the system failed them….a black man was elected president and now the "others" have taken control of the country. "How could this have happen!" they question. "We want our country back!" FoxNews channels this Republican anger into policy opposition that favors corporate interest. The Republicans will oppose President Obama at every turn and seek to undermine the operation of our government purely for ideological reasons on the surface, with a steady undercurrent of racially motivated opposition.
Posted by chitown639 at 10/14/2009 @ 5:37pm
Secondly, American power and prosperity was created under conditions of far less government power than we see today. Perhaps it is time for us to rediscover those concepts...
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/14/2009 @ 3:44pm
The middle class (arguably the "factory" of American power and prosperity) was created as direct result of FDR's liberal policies, the creation of unions and high taxes on the rich to pay for common services for all, like Social Security, to allow our seniors some dignity in their final years. These policies were favorable to business, but regulated to remain cognizant of the workers who made the businesses succeed.
The fall of the middle class (sometimes referred to as the "squeezing" of the middle class) is a direct result of conservatives (with the Democrats' help) in reversing those policies. It started under Saint Ronnie Raygun.
Our current economic nightmare is a direct result of the removal of what little banking regulation was left by Phil Gramm (who would probably be the Treasury Secretary if McInsane had won), the conservatives and many Democrats under Clinton. All in the name of furthering the bubble economy created and steered by Alan Greenspan (anointed by St. Raygun).
Greed was the cause of all of it; the runaway belief that trickle down economics worked. If corporate regulations had been kept in place, maybe it could have worked in the long run. We'll never know because they took away those regulations, with Greenspan saying, "the market will adjust itself." Well, it adjusted itself all right, to the tune of over $700 Billion tax dollars. Big Business asking government for a bailout...how's THAT for conservatism? Sounds like Fascism to me.
Jeez. Read a history book.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/14/2009 @ 5:51pm
Posted by chitown639 at 10/14/2009 @ 5:37pm
How in the world do you feel you have any credibility stating that "many Republicans are insanely angry because a black man was elected president?" From your posts it is obvious you don't even know any Republicans.
If anything, Obama is President BECAUSE he's mixed race. Or do you actually believe a one term, Harvard Educated, US Senator with community organizing experience could win the Presidency against Hillary Clinton and McCain if he were a WHITE guy? Really, you believe that?!
So pack away the racist crap shitown639. Material opposition AND SUPPORT of Obama, I may add, is rooted in his collectivism, and internationalism, not in his race.
Posted by ginza00 at 10/14/2009 @ 5:55pm
Would you feel better if wars actually did pay for themselves by seizure of other people's property and livelihood?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/14/2009 @ 3:56pm
What I'm saying is that NONE of that oil, at ANY price, is worth the lives of several thousands of Americans, at least 100,000 Iraqi lives (that's the CONSERVATIVE estimate), several hundred thousand displaced Iraqis, and over a trillion dollars of American tax dollars.
Iraq was a war of choice, started by a President with serious self-esteem issues who was taken advantage of by neocons who saw an opportunity in 9/11 that didn't exist prior to that event (read PNAC). The President LIED to the American people to get his war, which is STILL not over and which has all the costs (and more) that I listed above.
I don't care what the price of oil is today or any other day. THEY (Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld) were they ones concerned about the price of oil.
BTW, it wasn't ANY democrat telling the American people the "war would pay for itself." It was Paul Wolfowitz, a Republican, a known liar and cheat. No Democrat would be THAT stupid, and there are a lot of stupid Democrats.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/14/2009 @ 6:12pm
"BTW, it wasn't ANY democrat telling the American people the "war would pay for itself." It was Paul Wolfowitz, a Republican, a known liar and cheat."
Wolfowitz left the Bush Administration and promptly went to run the World Bank. He is not a Republican, he is a Fabian Socialist.
Posted by ginza00 at 10/14/2009 @ 6:29pm
<i>Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/14/2009 @ 5:22pm </i>
I'm sorry, but I can't help myself. There's some really bizarre arguments here, even ignoring the giant psychological assertions concerning President Bush (who I'm nonetheless no fan of by any means).
1) The "police work" argument. Man I love this one. Police work succeeded because the guy who ran the bombing tried to collect on a deposit he made in-country. Well, that may be effective if the people you're after are actually in this country and detectable. What happens when the ones you're after aren't here, but somewhere like, say, Afghanistan? Are you going to ship NYPD abroad and have them do an investigation across the mountains and eventually make an arrest?
2) Conflating efficacy and legality. Let's put to the side the question of whether wiretapping is legal. Your response is literally "of course wiretapping wouldn't have done anything about 9/11, it's illegal!" Unfortunately, those two aren't coextensive. The fact that monitoring communications and looking for key indicators might be illegal does not mean that it will therefore be a total failure.
Forgive my responses here; I have a whole lot of respect for your arguments, but these were just too tempting to ignore.
Posted by Thrawn at 10/14/2009 @ 7:20pm
lrjones, i really don't have time to have this conversation with you. the iraq invasion was a blatant example of overt, imperial aggression against a sovereign country. HR violations are never a sufficient justification for invasion/occupation. never. if so, then we really should have invaded sudan and china and north korea and iran and pakistan first.
you are an extremist, propagandist, and i simply have other matters to attend to, good day. dd.
Posted by darladoon at 10/14/2009 @ 10:11am
Can I take that as a concession Ms D. that you really were unaware of your own country's legislation with respect to the removal of the Saddam regime and GWs trumpeting of Saddam's HR violations (most backed up by UN resolutions too) as a just reason for Saddam's removal.
No one is disputing that WMD figured in the rationale but I just wanted to let you know there was only one moral justification for the war and that was bound up intrinsically with Saddam's police state that majored in human rights violations which many claim puts his regime right up with history's recent worst, such Nazi Germany. That also includes genocide. That's why it is a no brainer that Saddam's Iraq always should have been first cab off the rank. I mean Pakistan is a great Cricketing nation. A great civilising sport. Where is your sense of perspective?
So it is obviously not a knockout but are you conceding on points?
If you get a bit bored with those other things and would like to go another round or two how about catching up a bit on your own recent history first. As a suggestion see if you can google up some of the other public references GW made to Iraq's HR violations. Otherwise expect to go down for the count.
ps. The only sovereignty in Iraq belonged to Saddam. So toss that argument out.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/14/2009 @ 7:44pm
Oh, and nice try with trying to blame Clinton for 9/11. FYI, they CAUGHT the people who did the first WTC bombing, which did take place under Clinton's watch. Took 'em about a year afterwards and he's still in jail. They did it through excellent police work, and not a war.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/14/2009 @ 5:22pm
Yeah, but the idea is to catch them BEFORE they carry out their attack. The "CSI New York" stuff comes after people have been killed and is thus not the ideal way to handle this.
Good police work? Okay, but you know what really "cracked" the case? When Mohammad Salameh went back to the truck rental place to ask for his deposit back. A real criminal mastermind there.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/14/2009 @ 8:38pm