An Assault on Media Diversity and Democracy

posted by John Nichols on 10/18/2007 @ 3:21pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (161)

Subscribe Now

President Bush is the lamest of lame-duck chief executives, with no moral authority, no legislative majority and no popular domestic or foreign-policy agendas. So what can he do with the remaining months of a failed presidency? Make his corporate allies rich and destroy the essential underpinnings of American democracy.

To that end, Bush's chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has initiated a scheme to radically rewrite media ownership rules so that one corporation can own the daily newspapers, the weekly "alternative" newspaper, the city magazine, suburban publications, the eight largest radio stations, the dominant broadcast and cable television stations, popular internet news and calendar sites, billboards and concert halls in even the largest American city.

This "company-town" scheme, which would be achieved by lifting current limits on media cross-ownership, is the long-held dream of media moguls such as NewsCorp's Rupert Murdoch and Tribune Company-buyer Sam Zell. With one FCC vote, media billionaires will be able to become media multi-billionaires by controlling the entire communications landscapes of major metropolitan areas -- and by extension whole regions and states.

The mogul's dream is the citizen's nightmare. With this rewrite of the rules, local, state and national democratic processes would be run through the wringer of media monopolies designed to reap massive profits - while comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted in a manner that maintains the political and economic status quo. Basic liberties -- freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to petition for the redress of grievances -- would exist largely within boundaries established and policied by local media managers.

It's an Orwellian scenario that the American people rejected overwhelming in George Bush's first term, when three millions citizens and activist groups of the left and right united to oppose a similar set of rule changes proposed by Martin and then-FCC chair Michael Powell in 2003. The public outcry influenced an intervention by the federal courts that thwarted the hopes of the Bush Administration to deliver on a big promise to big-media owners.

Now, the FCC is attempting in these waning days of the Bush era to meet the demands of its big-media allies. And Martin, an ambitious Republican who hopes to satisfy media corporations sufficiently to secure the campaign money he will need to launch a political career in his native North Carolina, is more sly than Powell. He's trying to rewrite the rules quickly and quietly.

Only this week, in the course of a Senate Commerce Committee hearing, was it revealed that the FCC chair plans to have the committee vote on his radical rule changes before Christmas. Martin has the votes, as he and two other Republican members of the FCC form a majority that can defeat the committee's two dissident Democrats, Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein.

Only popular and official outcry, of the sort heard in 2003, will stop the Bush Administration from delivering for big media. And Martin's plan is to move so rapidly that there is no time for serious scrutiny of the implications of the rule changes, and, of course, no time for the opposition to organize.

An official facade of proper procedures will be attached to the administration's radical assault on media diversity and local democracy. But whatever hearings and studies may be rushed out in the coming weeks by an FCC establishment that already has been revealed as determined to game the process will be nothing more than window dressing. As Mark Cooper, the veteran director of research at Consumer Federation of America, says of Martin: "The chairman has already decided what rule changes he wants to make -- he is just going through the motions. The FCC hasn't even received all of the public comment in this proceeding, and Martin is already scheduling a vote."

What will stop Martin and Murdoch? The right signals from Capitol Hill must be sent. And they are starting to come. Two key senators, North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan and Mississippi Republican Trent Lott, have written Martin and other FCC members, declaring that, "We do not believe the Commission has adequately studied the impact of media consolidation. The FCC should not rush forward and repeat mistakes of the past. The Commission is under considerable scrutiny with this proceeding. We strongly encourage you to slow down and proceed with caution."

That's the necessary message. But it must be amplified -- in Congress and in the communities across America that will become media "company towns" if Kevin Martin, George Bush and Rupert Murdoch get their way.

Comments (161)

Well, this atleast SEEMS to be bipartisan....

so maybe unlike the war (or even "anti-Armenian genocide" resolutions), they'll actually get something done!

Posted by Mask at 10/18/2007 @ 4:17pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS

I second the motion.

Posted by mtspence05 at 10/18/2007 @ 5:22pm
THE DEMS HAVE NO EXCUSE TO DROP THE BALL ON THIS ONE...

(Wait, no, actually they do. They're also being funded by big corps.)

BUT RE

"President Bush is the lamest of lame-duck chief executives, with no moral authority, no legislative majority and no popular domestic or foreign-policy agendas. So what can he do with the remaining months of a failed presidency? Make his corporate allies rich and destroy the essential underpinnings of American democracy."

WHAT CAN HE DO WITH THE REMAINING MONTHS OF A FAILED PRESIDENCY?...

I'll tell you what he's ALSO getting ready to do -- Middle East Peace Talks starring Condi Rice. Wanna bet that these upcoming talks, aimed possibly at creating a Palestinian State are timed in accordance with the 2008 election? (Naaaaw....)

BTW, technically the term "lame duck" does not apply to a President's Second Term per se, but to that period AFTER a Presidential election between the time the new President is elected (beginning of Nov.) and the time he or she takes office (Jan. 20). During this interregnum period, the old President (still holding office) is a "lame duck." No one but me seems to know this interesting fact, so I constantly see references to Bush being a "lame duck" President. Lame he definitely is but not because this is his second term....

DO LAME DUCKS SWIM IN QUACKMIRES?...

Posted by w_m_bear at 10/18/2007 @ 5:28pm
Remember when journalism was a proud and responsible institution?

Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/18/2007 @ 5:36pm

I DUNNO...

I was watching some video clips from the fifties last night and thinking how incredibly naive that fifties perspective on the world seems now. Journalistically, in those days, there were simply a lot of topics that were absolutely verboten. For example, sex scandals. In the fifties, a scandal like Larry Craig story would have been buried so deep and couched in such obscure language that you never would have heard of it. The main problem with journalism these days is that its loudest voices are those coming from basically a neoconservative perspective and I think a lot of mainstream "big media" types simply pick up on a lot of this -- or accept the White House spin on issues -- out of sheer mental laziness.

Someone at NYR recently pointed out that so-called "old journalists" -- especially your classical newspaper reporters -- came from the working classes and had a kind of built-in distrust of politicians but that the current journalistic crop is mainly upper-middle-class in origin and has no such admirable distrust of pols....

I dunno....

Posted by w_m_bear at 10/18/2007 @ 5:57pm
Posted by W_M_BEAR

All the expert opinion comes from the corporate funded think tanks, too.

Posted by mtspence05 at 10/18/2007 @ 6:17pm
. Send a message NOW !

Don't let this happen ! ! !

Congress : Find your Senators and Congressman

http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/home/

an email to each please

.

Posted by mmckinl at 10/18/2007 @ 6:49pm
Speaking of Limbaugh....---Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/18/2007 @ 5:25pm

ROFL....FRANK, YOU were the one first speaking of him!

I swear, I'm still inclined to think your support of Hillary is less about liking her...and more about liking her because Limbaugh (supposedly) hates her.

Posted by Mask at 10/18/2007 @ 8:05pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/18/2007 @ 8:16pm

FRANK, your previous calls for censorship of Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. and now endorsement for the Fairness Doctrine, certainly reinforce in my mind that FD IS about "hushing Rush". In other words, Air America can't make it so in order for "Left Radio" to compete, it needs Government mandate.

But again, I'm not so sure my theory is silly. Limbaugh is (or ACTS) like he'd hate a Hillary Presidency....you hate Limbaugh...and as the old line goes "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Especially since on other occasions you have ADMITTED that Hillary is doing something duplicitious or self-serving "just to get elected" and support it.

Posted by Mask at 10/18/2007 @ 8:44pm
I have been hoping that we could control the using of media to spread untruths about a political opponent. The Supreme Court has now ruled that it is okay to do so. Not good enough? Well, why don't we let a handful of people control all of the media? Without honest debate and compromise, we go backward. Without a truly free press (media), we are doomed.

Posted by terry byrd at 10/18/2007 @ 9:11pm
FRANK is actually the perfect example of a Clinton voter: dumb as a rock and ready to censor everyone he doesn't agree with, in the name of 'fairness'. You Hillary voters can have him.

Posted by pontificus at 10/18/2007 @ 10:10pm
More bad news from Iraq - for Democrats. For America, it's good.

October 18, 2007 The Northwest Baghdad awakening

The White House is circulating an "update" on Iraq. Among the good news is a report on Northwest Baghdad, where the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division operates in a 93 square kilometer region with over 1 million people. It reports that in this region:

There has been an 85 percent reduction in violence since May.

58 of the 95 mahalas or neighborhoods are now considered under control, with 33 in a clearing status.

Murders are down from a peak of over 161 reported murders per week a year ago to less than five per week.

IED and small arms attacks are down from a peak of 50 per week in June to less than five per week since the end of August.

Vehicle-borne IED attacks are down nearly 85 percent.

The unit is partnered with ten Iraqi army battalions and two national police battalions deployed across the Kadhimiya and the Mansour security districts. According to Col. J.B. Burton, these areas "are commanded by highly competent, patriotic Iraqi brigadier generals who consistently demonstrate their unbreakable will to deliver security, reconciliation and reconstruction to northwest Baghdad."

Posted by pontificus at 10/18/2007 @ 10:14pm
well, if bush doesn't get this done,

president hillary murdoch sure will!

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/18/2007 @ 10:16pm
hey, let's rename the soon to be controlled markets:

Newscorp York

AT&Texas

Comcastecticut

Disneyiami.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/18/2007 @ 10:23pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/18/2007 @ 10:14pm

We have any body counts yet?

Posted by Mask at 10/18/2007 @ 10:31pm
Its so weird when the opposites finally exhibit the same conduct! Take the USSR, that finally lost the cold war to the "power of freedom" of the US. Did not they had only Pravda and subsidiaries? The righteous of that right who ain't ever right, are planning the same for the US. In the name of a market economy, free the media from any "market rigidity". The name of the game: he who has dollars can deliver his ideas; he who does not, can forget about his. The plan: monopoly and society brainwashing in the long run just like good old USSR.

But wait, there is a slight difference. People in the USSR finally did not believe their Chief Comrades because they perceived the freedoms in the West that came as an underculture. Here, they will sell you the WASP corporations' point of view and they will tell you you are free (free as like when you need to choose between Fox or FoxSports). That no one in the world matches our political-economical-social-media system. And you know what?

As Orwell predicted, people will believe it. In fact they do so right now especially all over the 'Bible belt' in the south where many people associate the right with morals and decency, instead of associating it with their true "real values" of hypocrisy and anti-fraternity.

A media paper or TV channel is succoessful when people buy it or indirectly buy the advertising. People return to that specific media to satisfy their psychological needs (as in the famous conditioning experiments in psychology)to bash immigrants, Jews, blacks, and you name it. Was it Hitler that did the same?

The only way out is to be united against it and...promote culture, critical thinking, diversity, richness of expression, art, humanism, respect and fraternity with others...and so more, values that are not precisely abundant on today's classrooms.

Posted by Frank42 at 10/19/2007 @ 01:46am
Its so weird when the opposites finally exhibit the same conduct! Take the USSR, that finally lost the cold war to the "power of freedom" of the US. Did not they had only Pravda and subsidiaries? The righteous of that right who ain't ever right, are planning the same for the US. In the name of a market economy, free the media from any "market rigidity". The name of the game: he who has dollars can deliver his ideas; he who does not, can forget about his. The plan: monopoly and society brainwashing in the long run just like good old USSR.

But wait, there is a slight difference. People in the USSR finally did not believe their Chief Comrades because they perceived the freedoms in the West that came as an underculture. Here, they will sell you the WASP corporations' point of view and they will tell you you are free (free as like when you need to choose between Fox or FoxSports). That no one in the world matches our political-economical-social-media system. And you know what?

As Orwell predicted, people will believe it. In fact they do so right now especially all over the 'Bible belt' in the south where many people associate the right with morals and decency, instead of associating it with their true "real values" of hypocrisy and anti-fraternity.

A media paper or TV channel is succoessful when people buy it or indirectly buy the advertising. People return to that specific media to satisfy their psychological needs (as in the famous conditioning experiments in psychology)to bash immigrants, Jews, blacks, and you name it. Was it Hitler that did the same?

The only way out is to be united against it and...promote culture, critical thinking, diversity, richness of expression, art, humanism, respect and fraternity with others...and so more, values that are not precisely abundant on today's classrooms.

Posted by Frank42 at 10/19/2007 @ 01:46am
Its so weird when the opposites finally exhibit the same conduct! Take the USSR, that finally lost the cold war to the "power of freedom" of the US. Did not they had only Pravda and subsidiaries? The righteous of that right who ain't ever right, are planning the same for the US. In the name of a market economy, free the media from any "market rigidity". The name of the game: he who has dollars can deliver his ideas; he who does not, can forget about his. The plan: monopoly and society brainwashing in the long run just like good old USSR.

But wait, there is a slight difference. People in the USSR finally did not believe their Chief Comrades because they perceived the freedoms in the West that came as an underculture. Here, they will sell you the WASP corporations' point of view and they will tell you you are free (free as like when you need to choose between Fox or FoxSports). That no one in the world matches our political-economical-social-media system. And you know what?

As Orwell predicted, people will believe it. In fact they do so right now especially all over the 'Bible belt' in the south where many people associate the right with morals and decency, instead of associating it with their true "real values" of hypocrisy and anti-fraternity.

A media paper or TV channel is succoessful when people buy it or indirectly buy the advertising. People return to that specific media to satisfy their psychological needs (as in the famous conditioning experiments in psychology)to bash immigrants, Jews, blacks, and you name it. Was it Hitler that did the same?

The only way out is to be united against it and...promote culture, critical thinking, diversity, richness of expression, art, humanism, respect and fraternity with others...and so more, values that are not precisely abundant on today's classrooms.

Posted by Frank42 at 10/19/2007 @ 01:46am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/18/2007 @ 11:21pm

Everyone. The Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with silencing rush or anybody else. Limbaugh gets more votes for democratic candidates than they otherwise would have had. I just don't think it's a good thing to have one political philosophy control the people's airwaves. That's bad for democracy. Let the Fairness Doctrine be restored so we can hear both sides of the story. Isn't that the fair thing to do? Isn't that why it's called the FAIRness Doctrine?

I don't think you're fooling anyone, FRANK. If nobody wants to listen to Air America or anything like it, that's your tough luck. Maybe you should try to figure out why, instead of trying to FORCE everyone to listen to it using some Orwellian 'Fairness' doctrine.

Posted by pontificus at 10/19/2007 @ 04:24am
While we're at it how about we retire the Russerts, the Blitzers, the Hannitys, etc., all the shills for Christian & Israeli Zionists who continually reposition the image Americans have of the outside world - attempting to make us into anti-Muslim bigots, scared to death of shadows, and belligerent as first resort. If we attack Iran you can thank the irresponsible talking heads we foolishly think of as "journalists."

Posted by blurbster at 10/19/2007 @ 06:15am
More bad news from Iraq - for Democrats. For America, it's good.

October 18, 2007 The Northwest Baghdad awakening.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/18/2007 @ 10:14pm

Nice stuff Ponti but these Libs like their news mature like good wine. 18 October 2007? You haven't got something a bit older for them say vintage 2005 - 2006, or even older, so they can see how the surge is not working? "They were all eating and drinking and blogging and blogging and blogging until...the flood came and swept them all away; so shall it be with those who get drunk on vintage Iraq press releases".

Posted by lrjones4 at 10/19/2007 @ 07:20am
As Orwell predicted, people will believe it. In fact they do so right now especially all over the 'Bible belt' in the south where many people associate the right with morals and decency, instead of associating it with their true "real values" of hypocrisy and anti-fraternity.

A media paper or TV channel is succoessful when people buy it or indirectly buy the advertising. People return to that specific media to satisfy their psychological needs (as in the famous conditioning experiments in psychology)to bash immigrants, Jews, blacks, and you name it. Was it Hitler that did the same?

The only way out is to be united against it and...promote culture, critical thinking, diversity, richness of expression, art, humanism, respect and fraternity with others...and so more, values that are not precisely abundant on today's classrooms.

Posted by FRANK42 10/19/2007 @ 01:46am

FRANK42,

I think you have hit on something here. I would like to add to that now. The WASP bible type folks out here in the south have a certain belief system that isn't even based on reality. If you question them about this, they try to back up their arguements through what their pastors told them that is in the bible, and in some cases, what their pastors tell them isn't even in the bible.

I believe in the right to worship whatever God or religion you like as long as you aren't harming others. But, what goes on here in the south has less to do with worship than a political agenda of hatred and being paranoid of anyone with other thoughts other than the old southern baptist so called Christianity. Quite a few of these so called Christians think back fondly of the days when they put white sheets on and terrorized and murdered people of color. They make comments in whispers with a snicker or chuckle and think that it's funny. Some fine followers of Christ these people are.

This kind of Christianity says it's ok to kill which is not one of the 10 commandments. But, their version of the bible they say says thou shall not murder instead of kill, so killing is ok. That's why we have religious nutcases like that idiot running Blackwater thinking he's some kind of flag waving crusader while cashing in on his death business.

The right wing evangelical movement in this country is nothing more than a tax shelter for the neoconservative political machine to gain votes in the southeast. The funny thing here is that the true neocons play the people in the bibleblet like a banjo and stir up their paranoia of anyone with a different skin color, nationality, sexual orientation or religious belief system to drive their votes. If that isn't using a religious tax shelter for political gain, I don't know what is. But the corporate owned media rarely brings this up.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/19/2007 @ 07:24am
"The White House is circulating an "update" on Iraq..."

Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/18/2007 @ 10:14pm

Let's all swill appreciatively from that cool frosty pitcher with the friendly face.

Posted by bwindrip at 10/19/2007 @ 08:32am
The unit is partnered with ten Iraqi army battalions and two national police battalions deployed across the Kadhimiya and the Mansour security districts. According to Col. J.B. Burton, these areas "are commanded by highly competent, patriotic Iraqi brigadier generals who consistently demonstrate their unbreakable will to deliver security, reconciliation and reconstruction to northwest Baghdad."

Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/18/2007 @ 10:14pm

PONTIFICATOR, Since you think this area is so safe and under control, why don't you move there since it's paradise. Only 5 murderers per week and 5 IED or small arms attacks sounds like the neighborhood in Leave It To Beaver. Hey Wally, they only blew up 5 people this week. Yahoo.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/19/2007 @ 08:50am
Frank,

The Senate went after a private citizen. This should alarm you, for the next Repub Senate leader could go after you. The truth is for most who actually listened to the Limbaugh story in question is that Reid made a mistake...a mistake someone would make who doesn't listen to Limbaugh...

Since you listen more than anyone we know here, you should be able to see the error as easy as my 15 year old and had Hillary tell him so...but I expect to much from you..I am sure REID has had an ass reaming from all the other idiots who didn't listen or read the letter..this is better than even Limbaugh could expect..this is pricelss.

And the Senate under the Democrats and Reid himself now look like monkeys asses and Limbaufg made them eat a shit burger..While not a Limbaugh fan, I celebrate his victory and once again whince at your silliness. You are more dangerous than any one politician I know..for you are willing to close down freedoms of speech with someone monitireing the speech in order to make it "Fair"..who would we use to decide the "Fairness" of it? You?

We would all be fucked using that standad..for you are sick. You constantly remind me of the blue dress, as you spend so much time with your head under Hillarys dress..licking her balls.

Another sad point..you will never read most of the criticisms of your due to your ignore list, or should I say "Fairness List", since you silence those who disagree with you..IDIOT.

I have a new handle thanks to Bushfools..

Posted by JoMa at 10/19/2007 @ 09:17am
Posted by JOMA 10/19/2007 @ 09:17am

So how DOES Rushes dick taste?

And please, don't talk with your mouth full.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 10/19/2007 @ 09:54am
Really JOHN NICHOLS, your so emotional! No more chocolate for you! Heh Heh

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/19/2007 @ 10:03am
FRANKGRITS:

Actually, there is plenty he could do between now and election to change his poll numbers. But, short of another terrorist attack, it won't happen.

Posted by jorcheim at 10/19/2007 @ 10:58am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 10/19/2007 @ 10:55am

Off-topic, but the other thread is bugged, MBB.

Any comment on James Watson apologizing?

Posted by Mask at 10/19/2007 @ 11:03am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 10/19/2007 @ 10:03am

i wouldn't consider this a laughing matter.

where do you live, "disneyami or newscorp york"?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/19/2007 @ 11:35am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/18/2007 @ 11:21pm |

dude, the fascist enablers here love the fascism. thet want their news one sided and reassuring. they want to be told lies...they love the fascist lies...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/19/2007 @ 12:08pm
IBBLEBLIBBLE:

Right... the LOVE the fascism. In fact, it's probably the best fascism they have ever had. But if I have to choose between fascism and human rights, I'm gonna have to go with the human rights. It's hard enough to fit them into our country...

Sorry, that was a bad reference to "The State", a fantastic comedy sketch show on MTV from the 90s.

Posted by jorcheim at 10/19/2007 @ 12:15pm
the fascist dupes want their exploiters to control all media. they are part of the 29% crowd and crave a media that lies to them to the tune of their evil ideology - its the only way their side can win with the masses...

look at the last 30 years - right wing privately financed propaganda, spewing lies and misinformation, poisoning political dialogue...now despite it all, even pop culurally lobotomized amoronica has soehow figgered it out - bodies, injuries and the internet, i guess - so they are trying to take the internet.

and these fascist dupes who post here are worse than pathetic - unless they are all top 1 percenters - but they are not. they are just fascism and evil enabling blowhard dupes!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/19/2007 @ 12:16pm
Posted by JORCHEIM 10/19/2007 @ 12:15pm |

that was funny - i remember it..

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/19/2007 @ 12:17pm
i'm a con-troll dupe!

please keep telling me lies! i love it! when reality doesnt conform to my ideology i want to hear lies that do!

plus i would rather support and enable evil than ever admit i might be wrong...because i'm so great and you all just want my money!

please keep telling me lies that agree with my delusions and puff up my over-estimated self image! its more important than my country's democracy...i win! we win!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/19/2007 @ 12:22pm
If there ever is another draft, the conscripts should come only from the WHITE south, both republican and democratic to pay for their sins of a hundred and fifty years ago.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/19/2007 @ 1:35pm | i

and you wonder about ME?

lol

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/19/2007 @ 1:44pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/19/2007 @ 1:45pm

frank - southerners dont need a draft to throw their lives away in the name of evil causes!!!!

sheesh!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/19/2007 @ 1:52pm
Dr,

"Posted by JOMA 10/19/2007 @ 09:17am

So how DOES Rushes dick taste?

And please, don't talk with your mouth full.

Posted by DR DECIBELS 10/19/2007 @ 09:54am"

I don't listen to Limbaugh except after this REID foot in mouth fiasco..and when I herd the re broadcast of the episode in question I really think Reid is a dolt of ALGORE status..

His attempt in the Senate today to sound as if he was part of the "Charity letter" was pathetic. Tried to link himself to the charity..

i found out later, but REID NEVER mentioned today..

1. Rush was matching the amount bid

2. Rush has been chairman and boeard member of that charity for years

3. Reid was invited on Limbauigh show to debate or discuss the issue

4. Rush challenged the Senator and anyone else in his signers of letter to match the amount raised..

All met with crickets..

Far as a "dick Tasyte"...you will have to ask Frank, he has been licking Hillarys balls for a long time now

John Maasch..

Posted by JoMa at 10/19/2007 @ 2:02pm
"I'll go you one further. What's more non-American and unpatriotic than seceeding from the union like the soutern states did causing the Civil War. As far as I'm concerned, these people, traitors all, millions of whom are direct decendents of the Confederacy haven't got a right to say jack shit. They don't even believe in our Constitution and to this day fly the Confederate flag. If there ever is another draft, the conscripts should come only from the WHITE south, both republican and democratic to pay for their sins of a hundred and fifty years ago.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/19/2007 @ 1:35pm

This is one serious IDIOT...and dangerous...he has bred..

Posted by JoMa at 10/19/2007 @ 2:03pm
"Posted by JOMA 10/19/2007 @ 09:17am |

Not fooling me Maasch. Back to your cell with you.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/19/2007 @ 1:53pm

That Frank is a sharp one, isn't he? My new name was invented here openly by Bushfools...and yet he wasn't fooled!!!

Thank God Frank is on the left side...

Posted by JoMa at 10/19/2007 @ 2:09pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/19/2007 @ 2:00pm

wow...frankgrits in flametongue mode...cool!

let it flow, frank...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/19/2007 @ 2:20pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/19/2007 @ 1:45pm

The Fairness Doctrine is not about stifiling anybody but a monopoly of the people's airwaves by rightwing corporations and financiers is. That's why legislation is needed to balance the scales. We simply cannot let America become propagandized like some Communist country. Democrats will fix the problem as a priority in 2009.

FRANK, somehow I don't find it surprising that people on the left like yourself want the government telling people what they're allowed to put on the airwaves in the name of 'fairness' and 'freedom of speech'. You're a character right out of 'Animal Farm' or '1984' my friend.

Posted by pontificus at 10/19/2007 @ 2:22pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/19/2007 @ 2:22pm

So, you have no problem with "pirate" radio and TV? Because if you do, then you are advocating government control and you have a sound technical argument for advocating that position.

I'll assume that you are not advocating complete freedom of the airways and complete removal of all government control of the broadcast spectrum.

If you are going to have government control of the broadcast spectrum because it is considered a public resource, information being central to a democracy and so forth, then what is your criteria for access?

You can't go with the market model because government control is creating artificial scarcity and giving licenses to only a small sub-set of buyers that does not behave like a market at all.

If it is not a true "market" and you are arguing for government control, then why pray tell do you draw the lines if not at some sense of "fairness" or "public interest"?

I'd love to hear a thought out argument rather than some cheap comment about wanting the government to control what we see and here and explain how this is impacted by a Fairness Doctrine-like law being in place or not. How exactly is putting constraints on the monopoly power of licenses aimed toward increasing diversity of expression bad - given the technical need for licenses, market conditions under which they are sold and so forth?

Explain it to me.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/19/2007 @ 3:26pm
Uh, Frank....

As far as I'm concerned, these people, traitors all, millions of whom are direct decendents of the Confederacy haven't got a right to say jack shit. They don't even believe in our Constitution and to this day fly the Confederate flag. If there ever is another draft, the conscripts should come only from the WHITE south, both republican and democratic to pay for their sins of a hundred and fifty years ago. ----Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/19/2007 @ 1:35pm

So that would include the former Democratic President of the United States from GEORGIA, Mr. Carter...

or the former Democratic President of the United States from ARKANSAS, who also happens to be the husband of a Democratic front-runner.

Maybe for safety sakes, we should keep "traitors" AND their wives out of the White House, huh?

Posted by Mask at 10/19/2007 @ 3:59pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/19/2007 @ 3:57pm

LVLIB, given Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, etc.....

isn't a "genuine evangelical Christian" typically "one that hasn't been CAUGHT yet"?

Posted by Mask at 10/19/2007 @ 4:01pm
You'll have to do better than that. Most people knew what I meant. Think a little deeper ok?-----Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/19/2007 @ 4:06pm

They do? So we have to "translate" you besmirching an entire region of AMERICA and its citizens (as well as accusing them of nothing more than being DESCENDED from rebels, as if genes are evil).

No FRANK, I think most people DO know what you meant. You're a bigot. You just "make exceptions" if the person belongs to the right political party...or is married to the right woman!

BTW, Howard Beach, Yusef Hawkins, Abner Luweme, and Rodney King....all happened in the old UNION states.

Posted by Mask at 10/19/2007 @ 4:35pm
First of all, Wolfgang was referring to people of hate and bigotry. The people you cite are definitely flawed people, but I have never heard anyone accuse them of racism or bigotry.----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/19/2007 @ 4:07pm

Well, yes, LVLIB, they have.

I know YOU don't think Ted Haggard's teachings on homosexuality are bigoted...but others did. And therefore what eventually tripped him up, is doubly hypocritical.

So that example stands. As for Bakker and Swaggert, seems they preached a bit about "sexual immorality". In fact, those guys are lucky they WERE with women...given a few of the other examples (including Haggard) we could cite.

Posted by Mask at 10/19/2007 @ 4:40pm
BTW, if you ever wanted to see that it covers the ENTIRE political spectrum.....

I merely refer to my above two posts and FRANK and LVLIB!

Posted by Mask at 10/19/2007 @ 4:41pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 10/19/2007 @ 3:26pm |

Explain it to me.

Okay. Air America has failed miserably, and now you lefties want the government to MAKE everyone listen to your crap, because you realize now that you can't compete on an even playing field. To do this, you want the government to dictate what kinds of programming talk radio will be allowed to broadcast. And of course, you call this wonderful idea to make people listen to left wing crap 'fairness'. Understand now?

Posted by pontificus at 10/19/2007 @ 5:04pm
I would love to have you meet some genuine Christians. The church I pastor is a true rainbow church as is my own family.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/19/2007 @ 3:57pm

LVLLIB,

I actually come from a Christian family and have Christian friends...used to be one myself. I don't have any problem with the majority of the Christians in this country. As far as I know they don't try to shove their religious opinions down peoples' throats.

But, out here in the south, it's a different game. Now I know why my dad got out of Mississippi as soon as he could after he grew up. These folks down here are crazy. The Jesus they worship carries an M-16 in one hand, a handgranade in the other with a knife in his teeth and wishes death upon those who would dare oppose his way. Kind of reminds me of some of our religious friends out of the middle east who slammed a few planes into some buildings a few years back.

I don't see how people can follow the way, and be for war at the same time. They are 180 degrees apart from each other. J.C. never harmed a fly so what gives any Christian the right to kill anyone? That's what I find so troubling about people claiming to be Christians. On one hand they say they believe in Jesus and then turn around and go against everything the guy stood for. Either people have really short memories, can't read, or don't really believe in being Christians. Kind of a convenient religion. Follow it only when it suits your needs, otherwise disregard.

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/19/2007 @ 5:05pm
Interesting how the left controls 85 percent of traditional media, which is now failing because Americans are rejecting it (see: NY Times stock plunge, declining newspaper circulations around the country, abject failure of Air America, etc etc etc). Now, because the left doesn't control talk radio, they want the government to step in and give it to them. FRANK even considers it a 'high priority'. Up yours, FRANK!

The left also controls speech in most major universities through speech codes. Leftists are very uneasy with a free competion of ideas, because they know they always lose. Totalitarianism is native to leftism. No question about it.

Posted by pontificus at 10/19/2007 @ 5:10pm
This administration is still extremely dangerous not only to our civil liberties and rights, but to the world at large, and no one is stopping them.In fact they all seem to be caught in a political circle jerk about Iran (now buddied up w/ Russia). Cheney wants to hit Iran and would mess himself if WW111 explodes- 'gonna need to suspend the election for national security reasons'- Ah DICK ? We have no Americans in Gov't- we have imperialist and capitolist calling all the shots. We have been infiltrated and ours is a toy chest that rivals Pandora's box.They are on some psychotic mission and we have been rendered powerless. ASK THE UN TO LEVY WAR CRIMES CHARGES AGAINST THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. Then we can turn our attention to those in Congress & the SC that have failed to protect the Constitution and the citizens of our great country. Even if the UN can not agree to convict and punish these 'architects'- I'm betting we'll get the right to Impeach and prosecute them back from our other two governing parties. Otherwise we start with them and work our way the top of the sh*t pile. Carl & Debbie et al- I'll sign any petition to Recall your asses.I'd like to start cleaning house now-'08 is way to far in the future of possiblities for me.

Posted by Kimmy B at 10/19/2007 @ 7:31pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/19/2007 @ 04:24am

Funny that 70% of those subject, non stop, to the private enterprise fascist media reject the fascist neocon agenda but conversely those fascists who frequent a leftwing site such as this are confirmed and strengthened in their fascist, neocon leanings. Perhaps what is needed is greater media concentration and dissemination of the fascist, neocon variety in order to advance progressive liberalism?

The question that needs to be answered is this: Is it a result of the Nation's Journos or is it Frank Grits, Ibbie and other lefty bloggers who are thus, inadvertently, promoting the fascist, neocon cause.

Frank Grits is probably beyond help but Ibbie would probably do less harm in this way to the liberal cause if he gave up the habit that can send you blind.

Posted by lrjones4 at 10/19/2007 @ 8:12pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/19/2007 @ 4:45pm

FRANK, I'll merely quote you...

"As far as I'm concerned, these people, traitors all, millions of whom are direct decendents of the Confederacy haven't got a right to say jack shit. They don't even believe in our Constitution and to this day fly the Confederate flag. If there ever is another draft, the conscripts should come only from the WHITE south, both republican and democratic to pay for their sins of a hundred and fifty years ago." ----Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/19/2007 @ 1:35pm

Lyndon Johnson, Sam Nunn, Lawton Chiles, Ann Richards, Al Gore (Sr. & Jr.), Lloyd Bentsen, Jimmy Carter, John Edwards, and Bill Clinton (a short list)...all "of whom are direct decendents of the Confederacy haven't got a right to say jack shit".

Posted by Mask at 10/19/2007 @ 8:30pm
Hey, PONTI....

Given your inside dope on "the majority of the American people", a question....

How big a majority will the Repubs have when they re-take the Congress in 2008?

and 2nd, how much you figure Rudy "Partial Birth Is Just Alright With Me" Giuliani going to beat Hillary?

Posted by Mask at 10/19/2007 @ 8:32pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/19/2007 @ 9:12pm

No, FRANK, can't just "walk it back"...anymore than MARYBRET could walk back saying African-Americans are less intelligent than European- or Asian-Americans and then say "Well, maybe one or two like Colin Powell or Condi Rice"...

or MARKCANYON can walk back what he's said about Jews and then say "Okay, maybe not Yasmine Bleeth!".

You don't just throw out generic attacks on a whole group of people and then say "Oh, you're so dumb, of course there are a FEW exceptions".

AT THE LEAST, you're a terrible snob. But I think "bigot" fits quite nicely. We all already know you'd silence those you feel are "too evil" to speak (like Limbaugh)...and make excuses for Hillary because it's "more important for her to win, than how she wins".

All of which (bigotry, censorship of political enemies, and blind devotion to a leader) make for one ugly word...."fascist"...

or maybe for you worse...."neo-con".

Posted by Mask at 10/19/2007 @ 9:39pm
And, limbaugh will be challanged

Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/19/2007 @ 9:23pm

hasn't he always been just that?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/19/2007 @ 9:47pm
"Defining the conservative movement Limbaugh made the following comments in an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal in 2005:

I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them. We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation -- the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people. We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our principles.[61]

my comment: Anyone know any Conservatives like that?

Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/19/2007 @ 3:48pm

Every conservative I know, including myself, believes in the same thing and have for years..

Posted by JoMa at 10/19/2007 @ 9:59pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/19/2007 @ 5:04pm

You have a rather...overactive imagination. Let's go with your numbers and assume 85% of media outlets lean "left".

Care to share which ones promote a socialist, communist or other "left" perspective? Can to talk about the role advertising money has on what gets published, when and where? Care to explain how you can say level playing field in one breath and make the above claim in the other?

You'll also notice I sad thought out arguments. I even laid out some of the major points for you - yet, you ignored them. I reckon that that pretty much says it all.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/19/2007 @ 10:01pm
"Monopolies have been broken up by the Legislature and the Courts for years. Where have you been?

Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/19/2007 @ 3:16pm

Yes, monopolies have been broken up, especially when markets are cornered and the consumer has no choices...in radio, there are many choices..your problem is that the consumers have choosen NOT to support AIRAMERICA, et al., and have supported those they CHOSE..CHOSE FRANK..you fucking dolt..CHOSE...IDIOT.

Posted by JoMa at 10/19/2007 @ 10:02pm
"It might surprise you to know that there were plenty of people in the south before the Civil War who didn't agree with the secession or the Confederacy. When I ask you to think a little deeper, I don't expect you to come at me with names of people who obviously not part of the element that I was referring to. I shouldn't have to be that specific because of lazy minds. So, nice try but I'm through discussing something that doesn't need explanation.

Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/19/2007 @ 9:12pm

OK, how about these names of those who were aginst separation of the South ...

George Washington

Thomas Jefferson

Madsion

Monroe

Polk

Buchanan

Lincoln

Boone

Bowie

Houston

Handcock

Adams

Adams JR

Van Buren

All "Southern" and against secession..

Deep enough for you Frank?

Fucking IDIOT.

Posted by JoMa at 10/19/2007 @ 10:17pm
MAsk,

I am afraid FRANK represents more on the left than you realize..censorship comes easy to them...I love his comment on AIRAMRERICA needing govt to intervene in order to get air time ...for balance..

This guy is sick and dangerous...I am rethinking my stance on force sterilization...

Posted by JoMa at 10/19/2007 @ 10:20pm
Posted by MASK 10/19/2007 @ 8:32pm

Hey, PONTI....

Given your inside dope on "the majority of the American people", a question....

How big a majority will the Repubs have when they re-take the Congress in 2008?

and 2nd, how much you figure Rudy "Partial Birth Is Just Alright With Me" Giuliani going to beat Hillary?

It's curious that although you reject my thesis that Congress voted 80% against defunding the war, i.e., that they did so because their constituents did not support said defunding, you refuse to offer an alternative one of your own. Now, we've seen FROSTY say that Congress is nothing but shills for big corporations (pretty much a tag the left puts on anyone or anything they disagree with). This is the knee-jerk response one would expect from a leftist, but you seem reluctant to go there, so this leaves you hanging out in space.

As far as forecasting Congressional and Presidential elections is concerned, I would warn you to not count your chickens before they are hatched. Iraq as an issue is definitely receding, because the war is being won, and Rudy appears strong at this point. No one can predict who will win at this point.

As far as Hillary goes, though, all I can say is, if the American people are stupid enough to elect a patently corrupt leftist, they will deserve what they get.

Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2007 @ 06:28am
Posted by MASK 10/19/2007 @ 9:39pm

All of which (bigotry, censorship of political enemies, and blind devotion to a leader) make for one ugly word...."fascist"...

or maybe for you worse...."neo-con".

MASK, how dare you lump us all in with people like FRANK. FRANK and others like SRJENKINS intentions to use the government to censor their political enemies is open and blatant. Name anyone here or in the political sphere on the right who would make their personal political corruption so obvious.

Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2007 @ 06:33am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/19/2007 @ 9:23pm

As for Air America, the last time I saw they're still in business.

Yeah...so's Pan Am.

They're having a hard time cracking markets because of the monopoly that wingnut shows have, thus the reason for remedial legislation.

No, FRANK, they've been in every major market and failed, because nobody listens to them. Thus, you feel the need to force everyone to listen to them. Typical for a raving moonbat.

The airwaves belong to the people, not to rightwing corporations. When the Fairness Doctrine is restored and Air America is allowed to enter the larger markets now dominated by Limbaugh, you'll see their popularity soar because they're actually quite entertaining. And, limbaugh will be challanged, something he's never had to face.

'allowed'? You mean 'forced', I think. They've already failed in every major market! They have lower ratings than any other station! Nobody wants to listen to them, except nuts like you!

Universities are full of very educated people. If the large majority of them lean left, well that kind of says it all for me.

Universities are full of educated people who censor their poltical opponents and prevent hiring of those whose polticial philosophy is at odds with the politically correct doctrine. No wonder you love them so much.

Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2007 @ 06:39am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/19/2007 @ 9:23pm

You see, FRANK, what you so ably demonstrate here is that it's not the corporations you hate, it's America. You've already condemned the entire South. You hate America because it chooses Limbaugh over Air America, and your solution is to force censorship on the airwaves. Some people like you in Congress want to force control over Fox News content because it beats the crap out of the lefty Ted Turner's CNN on a daily basis. And JOMA is right, there are more dangerous, paranoid, Stalinists like you on the left than most people realize.

Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2007 @ 06:51am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/20/2007 @ 06:33am

FRANK and others like SRJENKINS intentions to use the government to censor their political enemies is open and blatant.

Quick, quick...if you have no ideas and can't address the substantive points raised go on the attack. If you bothered to actually understand my position, you would have learned that I favor diversity. The fascists should have just as big a microphone as the communists, theocracists, anarchists and business interests.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/20/2007 @ 08:57am
Posted by SRJENKINS 10/20/2007 @ 08:57am

The fascists should have just as big a microphone as the communists, theocracists, anarchists and business interests.

So, your big idea is that you or someone like you will be set up as the arbiter as to who gets access to the media, in place of the ratings system? Your big idea is that your own judgement will be used to determine who gets to say what and how much on the airwaves, all because nobody wants to listen to Air America? You're fucking brilliant, you know that?

Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2007 @ 09:13am
Not worried about a Clinton Presidency? The $100k bribe doesn't bother you? Sandy Berger seems fine to you as National Security Advisor? Alcee Hastings seems like a good fit to you as Clinton Campaign Chairman? Pulling FBI files on Clinton enemies no big deal?

Maybe this doesn't bother you either:

Clinton's Black-Box Candidacy

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, October 19, 2007 4:20 PM PT

Election 2008: An ambitious presidential front-runner. A hot scramble for campaign cash. A corner-cutting past. And now red lights are flashing that she could be in hock to foreign interests. This is going downhill fast.

Related Topics: Election 2008

How else does one explain the cash rolling in to Hillary Clinton's campaign from residents of Manhattan's impoverished Chinatown?

The Los Angeles Times on Friday uncovered an amazingly generous spirit of giving from Fujianese immigrant dishwashers and trinket sellers, hundreds of whom "spontaneously" coughed up $1,000 or $2,000 apiece for Clinton's presidential campaign. The $380,000 from their giving dwarfed the $24,000 that John Kerry raised there for his run for the White House in 2004.

Worse yet, when the Times checked the donors, more than a third couldn't be found and most weren't registered to vote. Some didn't even have green cards. Immigrant associations were cited as the nexus of the giving, but in a high-cost city where local per capita income is $21,000, it doesn't add up. In fact, it raises the question that someone is buying influence.

This Times story follows an earlier bombshell about Norman Hsu, one of Clinton's most valued fundraisers, who brought in $850,000 before he was exposed as a swindler on the lam.

Hsu's "bundling" of contributions from immigrants and people of low means in his debt had all the signs of proxy giving from someone hidden and higher up. As media scrutiny intensified, much of the largesse was returned to keep the heat off and the law at bay.

Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2007 @ 09:28am
Frank is the biggest confused loon I have ever come accross...he atually believes the nonsense he comes up with..

Can you imagine living in a home with that clown, being raised by people like him?..The humiliation from friends and family must be overwhelming...his offspring, if they have similar beliefs, have no chance...and if they realize just how stupid their father is, they have already left and never looked back...OMG...his wife..how abused!!!

He is worse than Hillary herself.

Posted by JoMa at 10/20/2007 @ 10:00am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/20/2007 @ 09:46am

This will be corrected soon. Sorry, but I can't be any clearer than that. If you don't understand, that's your problem, not mine.

FRANK, the only correction that is needed is the one up your ass.

Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2007 @ 10:09am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/20/2007 @ 09:53am

Yeah, nice try. Get used to saying President Clinton again.

Hey FRANK, you're not Chinese, are you? I have a feeling you're definitely turning Japanese, but Chinese would explain even more.

Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2007 @ 10:12am
Posted by JOMA 10/20/2007 @ 10:00am

He is worse than Hillary herself.

I think he is a fitting representative of Hillary on this forum.

Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2007 @ 10:41am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/20/2007 @ 09:53am

Yeah, nice try. Get used to saying President Clinton again.

Hey FRANK, I believe I have come to understand the source of your anger, and I would like to recommend a solution to your problem. [keziahs.com]

Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2007 @ 10:56am
I think he is a fitting representative of Hillary on this forum.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/20/2007 @ 10:41am

Exactly what I've thought for quite a while.....well, since after my first couple of weeks here! A core HRC supporter who knows and acknowledges that ethics, principles, integrity, honesty, resoluteness, steadfastness in the face of UN-popularity...are all non-relevant...the sheeps are just that, easily fooled when their doctored polls say Queenie is "Inevitable" and better "get on the wagon"...how many f*&^ing times have we heard FRANK tell the sheep here?

Posted by Happy at 10/20/2007 @ 12:05pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/20/2007 @ 09:13am

So, your big idea is that you or someone like you will be set up as the arbiter as to who gets access to the media, in place of the ratings system...

Yes, it's called democracy. Citizens, or people like me if you'd rather, make the decisions and hopefully, do so after taking the time to listen and understand the many diverse minority points of view.

You also seem to think that ratings are the only factor in determining what stays on the air. I'll point out the obvious that new shows don't have ratings. Nor are ratings the only thing advertisers look at when making media buys.

Imagine a presidency done by media-style ratings - would George W. Bush still have a job you think? Beginning to see some problems here?

You're fucking brilliant, you know that?

From where you are sitting, I can see how you come to that conclusion. I assure you, if you'd bother to learn more about the topic and stop dedicating yourself to bad arguments and school boy insults, you might be able to enter into some kind of dialogue and learn something rather than be dazzled by the brilliance of others.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/20/2007 @ 1:04pm
Posted by HAPPY 10/20/2007 @ 12:05pm

Care to share who the so-called "sheep" are? I don't see anyone parroting Frank. I do, however, see quite a few people parroting and acting like Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin and other people who know like to dish it out but wail whenever they get a taste of it themselves.

Don't worry. I hear a little pain medication will make it all better.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/20/2007 @ 1:13pm
Well, once again Ignore cowardice strikes. ZERO'itis, I'd call it, or maybe JOHANNES'ism.

Sorry FRANK, but I care little for your threat or even implementation. You are a snob and/or bigot, and an avowed censor, and a chauvinist (original sense) for HRC.

In my book, that makes you not much better than your counterpart on the Right, PONTI.

Posted by Mask at 10/20/2007 @ 1:57pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 10/20/2007 @ 1:13pm

HAPP's definition of a "Hillary sheep" includes anybody who isn't a die-hard Republican and admits that she will probably get the nomination (even if they say they don't particularly like or trust her).

Posted by Mask at 10/20/2007 @ 2:02pm
Posted by MASK 10/20/2007 @ 1:57pm

Care to share how Frank qualifies as "left"? Much less a leftist to such a degree that he can be contrasted with PONTI?

I can agree that they both follow their respective parties lines - but Democrats are only "left" when contrasted against the position of Republicans. Both, on any objective political evaluation, would be on the right.

Posted by MASK 10/20/2007 @ 2:02pm

I don't think so. By that criteria, I'd qualify as a sheep. Happy might want to label me any number of ways - but I don't think he would make the claim I was a sheep.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/20/2007 @ 2:43pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 10/20/2007 @ 1:04pm

So, your big idea is that you or someone like you will be set up as the arbiter as to who gets access to the media, in place of the ratings system...

Yes, it's called democracy. Citizens, or people like me if you'd rather, make the decisions and hopefully, do so after taking the time to listen and understand the many diverse minority points of view.

No, genius, government control over what people see, read, and hear on the media is not called 'Democracy' - it's called censorship. And if you don't know the difference, you shouldn't even be feeding yourself, much less participating in a political discussion.

Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2007 @ 2:54pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 10/20/2007 @ 1:04pm

So, your big idea is that you or someone like you will be set up as the arbiter as to who gets access to the media, in place of the ratings system...

Yes, it's called democracy. Citizens, or people like me if you'd rather, make the decisions and hopefully, do so after taking the time to listen and understand the many diverse minority points of view.

It's not often that we get a leftist here who outright admits that he (or a 'citizen like him') wants to control what other people get to see, read, and hear. 'After taking the time to listen and understand the many diverse minority points of view' of course! It is the rare leftist indeed who is stupid enough to outright admit such intentions. LOL! Hey SRJ, in the spirit of your post, perhaps you will agree to submit all your posts to me prior to submitting them to The Nation website, so that I may 'take the tiem to listen and understand' your point of view, and make a judgement as to whether it's suitable for publication! LOL

Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2007 @ 3:12pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/20/2007 @ 2:54pm

There is a difference between being, as you phrase it, "the arbiter as to who gets access to media" in the public interest and censorship.

You also seem to be claiming censorship is all bad. I'd love to see your arguments about how the executive "state secrets" power should be abolished and current troop positions in Iraq published. Or are these forms of government "censorship" ok with you?

In short, your absolute arguments are a bit naive.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/20/2007 @ 3:12pm

The Nation website is a good example of what I am talking about. You'll notice for instance, you haven't had any trouble to the site?

Why is that? Because some people, at The Nation, decided that they would provide a scare resource so that anyone could use it - even people like yourself who don't happen to share the ideology of the publication and who in general, don't contribute much that can be described as positive to it.

Now, I'll not explain to you how the U.S. could, like The Nation, open up it's limited media spectrum so more people, more different kinds of people can use it rather than how it is now - or why that is a good thing. I'll leave that to you to figure out for yourself, but I will make one suggestion: Think about media distribution as creating an open structure that invites dialogue. It's not about controlling what goes through that structure - which would lead one toward censorship as you suggest.

Given how you conduct yourself here, I can understand why this is so difficult for you to grasp. You aren't interested in diverse points of view. You're interested in promoting a particular point of view, even if that means calling black, white. Or more specifically, increasing freedom of the media somehow turns into censorship through sloppy thinking because you don't like it.

I'm willing to discuss issues with you. I think there are some areas where you and I agree. However, I must say I don't care for the overall tone of your posts - the name calling and so forth. I also think you jump and make quite a few false, but convienent, assumptions rather than actually trying to understand where someone else is coming from or even explaining your own position for that matter.

You'll note, for instance, that you still haven't answered my original questions: [Y]ou have no problem with "pirate" radio and TV? [W]hat is your criteria for access? How exactly is putting constraints on the monopoly power of licenses aimed toward increasing diversity of expression bad - given the technical need for licenses, market conditions under which they are sold and so forth?

Posted by srjenkins at 10/20/2007 @ 4:14pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/20/2007 @ 2:54pm

There is a difference between being "the arbiter as to who gets access to the media" and censorship.

Example: Imagine a guy at a meeting with a microphone. If he gives it to anyone that asks for it, how is it censorship? If he only gives it to white males above the age of 50? Then, yes, it's censorship. I never seen anyone here argue for a system like the second one.

Your argument also assumes censorship is always bad. Perhaps I missed all your arguments against state secrets priviledges and publishing of current troop positions in Iraq?

Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/20/2007 @ 3:12pm

The Nation is a good example - so glad you brought it up. The Nation has a relatively open system that provides a scarce resource to anyone that wishes to use it. Whereas our broadcast spectrum works more like the model you describe - except instead of you, it's media company and advertisers deciding what gets published, produced or what have you. My argument is simple: perhaps it's time for more people to be involved in that process.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to answer my original questions.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/20/2007 @ 4:34pm
Care to share who the so-called "sheep" are? I don't see anyone parroting Frank....

Posted by SRJENKINS 10/20/2007 @ 1:13pm

Among the bloggers I see/read, there are only a couple of (unnamed) sheeps.....the `herd' IS out there (on both the Right & the Left) but not tuned in as we are! No one will parrot FRANK ...hard to see anyone so slavish; unless paid to do so!

Posted by Happy at 10/20/2007 @ 5:03pm
The Nation has a relatively open system that provides a scarce resource to anyone that wishes to use it.

Posted by SRJENKINS 10/20/2007 @ 4:34pm

Yes, it does. But, it also has a market-based mechanism for us using its blog....the "ignore" button for some and for others, the `scroll past'!!

While RESE & PLUNGER are on my i-list, I'll bet they put out more comments than anybody else (at least up till some TN's writers asked them to dial back....hmmmmm, interference to their free speech?) .....could equate them to Air America, `On the Air' but few hears....right?

One thing Libs are well known for is its ingrained distrust of market competition. Sure, it has its abuses, occasional monopolies or oligopolies, but it's the best system that allows for the greatest number of choices.....every other system means more control by anti-market types, not less!

Posted by Happy at 10/20/2007 @ 5:13pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 10/20/2007 @ 2:43pm

Part one----FRANK's not "right-wing", SRJ. He may not be a "Kucinichite", but he IS "to the left of center". Plus few "moderates" have such a loathing for Limbaugh or have determined that Southerners in general are "racially traitors".

Part two----You aren't voting. HAPP more than happy to encourage that in those "left of center".

Posted by Mask at 10/20/2007 @ 7:42pm
You aren't voting. HAPP more than happy to encourage that in those "left of center".

Posted by MASK 10/20/2007 @ 7:42pm

No....and Yes....the Educated AND Informed should ALWAYS vote even as we all know, winning and losing are largely determined, rather unfortunately, by mostly the less (well) informed. An example of the less informed but not totally ignorant: those that knows nothing more about the S-CHIP program other than the generality of it being a children's health benefit but becomes incensed at Bush for vetoing an increase much larger than what he wanted & for dramatically widening elgibility hurdles.

Posted by Happy at 10/21/2007 @ 12:16am
What Happy says is indeed true. In the last 25 years or so it was a monopoly of Reps, just exluding Clinton. It is the less informed that elect the presidents. The Bible Belt in general, and Texas in particular are dictating national politics not through "values" but rather through hatred for anyone who is not a conservative redneck. Poor fellows to get to believe such stories as to be capable of voting against their own children's health insurance!

Posted by Frank42 at 10/21/2007 @ 05:41am
There is a difference between being "the arbiter as to who gets access to the media" and censorship.

Example: Imagine a guy at a meeting with a microphone. If he gives it to anyone that asks for it, how is it censorship? If he only gives it to white males above the age of 50? Then, yes, it's censorship. I never seen anyone here argue for a system like the second one.

Your example is not an example at all; it's a false parallel. Apples and oranges. The entirety of our media is not analogous to the necessary rationing of a single resource, because our media is far broader and varied. Your example might be useful if you were proposing, say, to 'democratically' apportion space on the limited pages of the Washington Post (a resource that you do not own, by the way). Applying your example as somehow analogous to the whole of American media is absurd, misleading, and self-serving.

Your argument also assumes censorship is always bad. Perhaps I missed all your arguments against state secrets priviledges and publishing of current troop positions in Iraq?

Censorship in the sense of the First Amendment is a term which by definition only applies to expression of political speech. It has not ever been intended or, in practice, to provide cover to those who choose to publish State secrets. Besides, publications such as the NYT are famous for publishing State secrets in the form of classified information, intended to damage duly elected governments for their own political purposes, and they don't even get punished for THAT (which by law they should be).

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to answer my original questions.

I can't take you seriously until you start demonstrating a respect and understanding of the fundamental aspects of a free society. I won't take you any more seriously thant FRANKGRITS until you stop proposing censorship of the airwaves.

Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2007 @ 08:23am
Posted by MASK 10/20/2007 @ 7:42pm

Most of Clinton's economic and foreign policies are right wing - not significantly different from Bush. As Frank is a big supporter, I think that raises some issues for using him as a posterboy for the "left".

Also, you are starting to get confused. I've always said here that I vote, unlike some others you may be confusing me with.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/21/2007 @ 08:23am

You'll notice I have always been careful in limiting our discussion to the broadcast spectrum - as my original questions, that you keep avoiding, make clear.

You also seem to have difficulty with abstraction. We are talking about media policy that applies across media - not the absurd examples you come up with to make it look like your argument holds any water. No one is arguing that you, or people that share your opinions, should get space in The Nation or vice versa. It's a particularly careless rendering of my position.

Also, your statement that the First Amendment is primarily concerned with political speech is simply false, and this semantic mistake is probably a significant reason why your argumentation is so weak.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/21/2007 @ 11:32am

Thank you LVL. Even though I think some of your ideas are, frankly, crazy - at least you put them out there and make it clear where you stand. I respect that.

In this case, I sympathize with your position. I would prefer that government was not involved because I think it would make for a more locally focused and democratic media landscape.

The problem is how do you deal with all the interference? Many of the electronics we use - such as cell phones, air traffic control communications, etc. - require broadcast spectrum that is relatively free from interference. How do you accomplish this without government?

Which leads me to my position, I'd prefer no government interfence. But I think the technical issues require it. If we are going to have goverment control of it, then it should be democratic control that provides the widest range of distribution possible - rather than most licensing going to a few media companies based on undemocratic process, as it is now. I don't think this position is particularly controversial, but people like PONTI like to misrepresent the argument because I believe, they don't like the implied anti-corporatism.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/21/2007 @ 12:29pm
Posted by FRANK42 10/21/2007 @ 05:41am

�excluding clinton?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/21/2007 @ 1:49pm
and this semantic mistake is probably a significant reason why your argumentation is so weak.

that's called PONTIFLOGIC

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/21/2007 @ 1:53pm
You know, I hear all the time on this site about Bush's corporate allies, and how he's in cahoots with them to get rich, but where's the proof? Or is it just a hunch? Maybe one that's fueled by your irrational dislike for all things corporate? It really never ceases to amaze me how damn clever you make Bush out to be. According to your accounts, Bush is able to orchestrate brilliant schemes behind the scenes and on a world-wide scale. Absolutely incredible by any measure! It seems like it should be relatively easy to track Bush's movements once he's out of office. Why don't we keep a close eye on him to see if he actually gets together with any of his corporate allies after '08 to count their dinero. It's going to take more solid proof for me to buy it. Photos, recorded calls, emails...anything that actually links Bush to one of these ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Posted by Person at 10/21/2007 @ 2:43pm
Posted by PERSON 10/21/2007 @ 2:43pm

It is a fact that Cheney has recieved deferred compensation from Halliburton while being Vice President. It is also a fact that Halliburton has recieved government no bid contracts. There is some evidence that Cheney was involved in that decision but there has never been an investigation. One is clearly warranted.

There are dozens of examples like this one. The fact that you are unaware of them suggests a willful ignorance on your part.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/21/2007 @ 3:30pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 10/21/2007 @ 3:30pm | ignore this person

I still don't buy it. Bush would be better off rigging the lottery or just flat out stealing from Fort Knox rather than going to all these supposedly radical extremes just to make a few bucks. What do you figure he'll do with all the cash? I mean when he's out of office, do you suppose he'll buy a private island? Will he be richer than Warren Buffet or Bill Gates? You can't hide that kind of money. And what's the use of having billions in the bank if you can't spend it like a drunken Saudi prince? There's just too much about this nonsense that's, well, nonsensical. Surely if Bush's net worth quadrupled during his presidency, there would be at least some scant mention of it in the regular press. At least in the editorial sections for Christ's sake. Imagine the headline: "Bush enters office a millionaire, exits a trillionaire!" That would get my attention for sure.

Posted by Person at 10/21/2007 @ 5:21pm
...Cheney has recieved deferred compensation from...

Posted by SRJENKINS 10/21/2007 @ 3:30pm

de.fer (red): V.To put off until a future time; postpone

Heck, I had no idea "deferred compensation" is illegal from some ex-employer! I wonder if pensions, not that I'll get it from any company, are illegal too! :)))

I've been told, someday, the Gubberment is going to give me deferred compensation......my mother calls it Social Security.....I'll believe it when I see it :)))

Posted by Happy at 10/21/2007 @ 5:22pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 10/21/2007 @ 12:29pm

Also, your statement that the First Amendment is primarily concerned with political speech is simply false, and this semantic mistake is probably a significant reason why your argumentation is so weak.

The day that the government gets concerned with any other type of discussion, I'll consider that statement to be no longer absurd.

Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2007 @ 6:21pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 10/21/2007 @ 3:30pm

It is a fact that Cheney has recieved deferred compensation from Halliburton while being Vice President. It is also a fact that Halliburton has recieved government no bid contracts. There is some evidence that Cheney was involved in that decision but there has never been an investigation. One is clearly warranted.

Cheney's deferred compensation was earned before he ever took office, and he donated his stock options to charity. For a full rundown on this, visit factcheck.org and educate yourself for God's sake. The fact that you haven't bothered to do any digging on this suggests a willful ignorance on your part.

Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2007 @ 6:25pm
If you want to talk about criminality, try checking the source of Hillary Clinton's money funneled through Hsu. Seems most of those contributions came from presumably penniless dishwashers and such in poor Chinese communities. Anyone who's not worried that these contributions are being funneled from China is pretty obtuse, especially when you consider the ICBM technology that Clinton's contributors at Loral sold to the Chinese. This is sure to be a story that is ignored, just like so many other Clinton scandals.

Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2007 @ 6:29pm
Posted by PERSON 10/21/2007 @ 2:43pm

You know, I hear all the time on this site about Bush's corporate allies, and how he's in cahoots with them to get rich, but where's the proof? Or is it just a hunch?

It's not a hunch, it's a religion.

Maybe one that's fueled by your irrational dislike for all things corporate?

Yes. Leftists have a burning hatred of all things 'corporate'. They think things would automatically be different if only the government was in charge. Tell them that if the government was in charge, things would be even worse because governments with that kind of power have no accountability, and all you will get is a blank stare. The core of leftism is a hatred of capitalism, there is no reasoning with most of these religious devotees.

It really never ceases to amaze me how damn clever you make Bush out to be. According to your accounts, Bush is able to orchestrate brilliant schemes behind the scenes and on a world-wide scale. Absolutely incredible by any measure! It seems like it should be relatively easy to track Bush's movements once he's out of office. Why don't we keep a close eye on him to see if he actually gets together with any of his corporate allies after '08 to count their dinero. It's going to take more solid proof for me to buy it. Photos, recorded calls, emails...anything that actually links Bush to one of these ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Leftists believe Bush is both stupid and brilliantly evil. Stupid because he sometimes doesn't speak well, but most of all because he doesn't agree with them, and in the lefty world, anyone who doesn't agree with the current doctrine is stupid, evil, or both. At the same time, Bush is incredibly brilliant, because he is the head of an ominipotent worldwide conspiracy. The very fact that they can't find any evidence of how much money he's stealing is proof of just how brilliantly evil he is. Both of these concepts together are an example of what Orwell meant when he said that to be a leftist, one must have the capability of believing two mutually imcompatible things a the same time. It's demonstrated here every day.

Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2007 @ 7:07pm
Typical that I have to educate people like SRJENKINS. Granted though that there are fewer of him around since I started doing this, these things are so easily debunked.

Anti-Bush Ad Overstates Case Against Halliburton June 18, 2004 Updated: June 28, 2004 MoveOn PAC ad says administration gave contracts "on a silver platter," but government investigators say otherwise. Summary An ad that began airing June 15 portrays a white-coated White House waiter serving contracts and wads of cash, while an announcer says the Bush administration gave Halliburton no-bid contracts "on a silver platter" and that the company was "caught" overcharging by tens of millions of dollars.

But in fact, investigators from the General Accounting Office (GAO) found Halliburton's no-bid contracts to be legal and probably justified by the Pentagon's wartime needs. Furthermore, Pentagon auditors have yet to make any final determination of whether payment should be denied to Halliburton for gasoline or meals for troops. Those billing disputes are still being negotiated.

Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2007 @ 7:18pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/21/2007 @ 7:07pm

PONTI, is the "left's logic" on Bush similar to the logic that despite EVERY poll showing 70% disapproval for him and the war...that if Dems in Congress are cowardly about stopping it....that means that

"the majority of Americans support the war"?

Posted by Mask at 10/21/2007 @ 8:17pm
My observation is that your major "print" media outlets get the facts about right. That can be ascertained by checking various sources that have different political orientations. The headlining of news reports generally shows a bias against Bush. That is particularly true of WP.

That generally observed filtering is probably because they feel they were too ready to uncritically support the Iraq war. If that is the reason it may not serve the people well, if it affects the reporting of present stories.

WP editorials are more supportive of Bush than say the NYT but I think the latter generally headlines articles with more unbiased relevance to the content.

New York Post and to a lesser extent Washington Times are supportive of the administration, maybe above the call of duty, but both report stories that are critical of the administration.

USA Today which (online) updates more regularly than the others, probably has a majority of left wing or anti- Bush/Iraq war bloggers and it does seem to headline its articles more negatively toward Bush and his policies than the article content warrants. Most of the right wing bloggers there seem to complain about it being a left wing rag.

The Australian is the best paper in Australia and is owned by Murdoch. Its editorials favour the Australian conservative party (Liberal Party) but its opinion pages including by its own in house journalists are split pretty evenly between centre Left (Aust Labor Party) and the centre right.

It is the most unbiased paper in this regard in Australia but all of them here seem to be fair in representing both sides, if not in their headlining at least in giving equal time to both sides in terms of opinion pieces.

That seems less true of say the NYT, which has a bevy of centre left to left columnists, with David Brooks being about the only "black Sheep". American media, unlike the Aus variety tends to set its tone by the lead columnists and opinion writers it employs and uses.

Smart media owners generally leave the running of their outlets to editorial staff whose political positions, no doubt, cover a reasonably wide spectrum. Outlets like the Nation or National Review play to a limited audience that generally has well established biases. John or Jane average citizen is very unlikely to even think seriously about many of the issues raised in such publications and thus boredom, for them, would quickly set in if that was all that was available. That's where news mixed with entertainment and minimal analysis is useful in giving most people their daily ration of news. That approach may help the bottom line but it may also be the only "news" that most citizens read or would think of reading.

Posted by lrjones4 at 10/21/2007 @ 9:21pm
Posted by MASK 10/21/2007 @ 8:17pm

MASK, for the fifth time that I can count, I will tell you that I disagree with your representation of what the polls mean. There may be any number of people who disapprove of the war, but that issue is over. The issue is what we do now. And an individual's disapproval of the war does not automatically mean that said individual supports funding withdrawal (notice how civil I'm being by not referring to this action as 'the Saigon-style cut and run that the surrender monkeys are again proposing'). The fact is, Reid and Pelosi do not have the votes in Congress to cut off funding. You can refer to Congress being 'cowardly' as much as you want, but I think that by saying so you're implicitly agreeing that those voting against a funding cutoff are afraid they will lose at the next election, which to me is much stronger evidence of popular support for not retreating at this stage than any number of tea leaves, chicken entrails, Ouija boards, or polls you are reading.

Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2007 @ 11:19pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/21/2007 @ 7:18pm

We'll use your source. I presume that you read the rebuttal linked from the same page that you cut and pasted from?

"According to the Los Angeles Times, Rep. Henry Waxman reported that "Pentagon officials have acknowledged that Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff and other Bush administration political appointees were involved in a decision to pay Halliburton Inc. to plan for the postwar recovery of Iraq's oil sector...The decision, overruling the recommendations of an Army lawyer, eventually resulted in the award of a $7 billion no-bid contract to Halliburton."

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Moveon_Rebuttal.pdf

Perhaps it was inconvenient for your argument? Once again, you have been sloppy.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/21/2007 @ 11:33pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 10/21/2007 @ 11:33pm

Perhaps it was inconvenient for your argument? Once again, you have been sloppy.

It isn't much of a rebuttal. Waxman says the payments were made over the objectinos of an Army lawyer. The GAO says there was nothing improper that they can see. I'll take the GAO's word over the Army lawyer. No doubt you'll take Army lawyer's word as an indictment of the entire GAO, chalking it up as more evidence of Bush's worldwide conspiracy. And so it goes.

Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2007 @ 11:40pm
I notice you've also not said any more about the 'deferred compensation' canard you previously set forth. Factcheck.org ran that one completely to ground, and if anything, it reflects an awful lot of credit on Cheney for giving up millions, perhaps tens of millions, in stock options in order to run for VP. The guy probably only has a few years left anyway, so the almost religious intensity you folks believe in his presumed greed is really incomprehensible to me. I guess you have your reasons, though. Some personal grudge against successful (non-liberal) capitalists (non-liberal) I guess.

Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2007 @ 11:45pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/21/2007 @ 11:45pm

yep, richard cheney, shining example of unselfish virtue.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2007 @ 12:12am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/22/2007 @ 12:12am

yep, richard cheney, shining example of unselfish virtue.

Dick Cheney is a self-made man who made himself rich through hard work. Nothing was given to him, and he actually gave up a lot to become VP. The fact that you do not agree with his poliitics does not make him greedy and evil, and reflects more on your view of the world than his.

Posted by pontificus at 10/22/2007 @ 08:00am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/22/2007 @ 08:00am

Gotta say, always curious as to who the 18% who like Dick Cheney, actually were.

Glad to meet ya!

Posted by Mask at 10/22/2007 @ 09:22am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/21/2007 @ 11:40pm

I'd like to see the GAO report that says this rather than rely on Factcheck to interpret my facts for me. All the reports I find talk about Halliburton graft. Have a link?

I didn't mention the deferred compensation because I don't think it warrants further comment. The bottom line is that deferred compensation looks remarkably like a kickback. When you factor in his business dealings while with Halliburton - look for bribes and Niger, this man shows a pattern that warrants investigation.

We don't know all the facts because there has been no investigation. There surely would have been if he would have been head of a major corporation and engaged in the same behavior.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2007 @ 09:25am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/21/2007 @ 11:45pm

Just another observation. Why is it that you seem to believe other people should make your arguments for you? You didn't challenge - and when you did, didn't bother to document - the deferred compensation issue. Yet, it suddenly becomes a canard?

While it is true that I don't like Cheney's politics, my objections are based on his behavior. His devotion to secrecy undermines open government. His devotion to the imperial Presidency will likely give a lot of support to the person who eventually destroys our republic. I question his business ethics, and I question his integrity - all for sound reasons.

Yet, you would like to pretend that critical evaluation of public officials is "religious" or some how emotional. It's the last position that people without a leg to stand on take - trying to make some claim of hysteria rather than challenge the logic or the facts.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2007 @ 10:06am
POSTED BY SRJENKINS

Just another observation. Why is it that you seem to believe other people should make your arguments for you? You didn't challenge - and when you did, didn't bother to document - the deferred compensation issue. Yet, it suddenly becomes a canard?

SRJENKINS, I have posted the information below for several people, like you, whose knowledge of the issues appears to have been gained and thereafter frozen in amber based on long-debunked Kerry campaign commercials that were first broadcast in 2004. I post it again for your edification below.

Please keep in mind that most people consider factcheck.org to be unbiased so the standard 'shoot the messenger' won't work here.

Yet, you would like to pretend that critical evaluation of public officials is "religious" or some how emotional. It's the last position that people without a leg to stand on take - trying to make some claim of hysteria rather than challenge the logic or the facts.

I don't call ALL critical evaluation of public officials 'religious' - just yours. I base this on the fact that you and people like you continue to take it as a given, or faith if you will, that Cheney personally profits from war when, in fact, you have nothing to support that contention but canards and innuendo. When presented with facts that contradict the faith, you press for details that don't exist or play 'shoot the messenger'.

Deferred Salary

The $398,548 Halliburton has paid to Cheney while in office is all deferred compensation, a common practice that high-salaried executives use to reduce their tax bills by spreading income over several years. In Cheney's case, he signed a Halliburton form in December of 1998 choosing to have 50% of his salary for the next year, and 90% of any bonus money for that year, spread out over five years. (As it turned out, there was no bonus for 1999.) We asked Cheney's personal attorney to document the deferral agreement as well, and he supplied us with a copy of the form, posted here publicly for the first time.

Legally, Halliburton can't increase or reduce the amount of the deferred compensation no matter what Cheney does as vice president. So Cheney's deferred payments from Halliburton wouldn't increase no matter how much money the company makes, or how many government contracts it receives.

On the other hand, there is a possibility that if the company went bankrupt it would be unable to pay. That raises the theoretical possibility of a conflict of interest -- if the public interest somehow demanded that Cheney take action that would hurt Halliburton it could conceivably end up costing him money personally. So to insulate himself from that possible conflict, Cheney purchased an insurance policy (which cost him $14,903) that promises to pay him all the deferred compensation that Halliburton owes him even if the company goes bust and refuses to pay. The policy does contain escape clauses allowing the insurance company to refuse payment in the unlikely events that Cheney files a claim resulting "directly or indirectly" from a change in law or regulation, or from a "prepackaged" bankruptcy in which creditors agree on terms prior to filing. But otherwise it ensures Cheney will get what Halliburton owes him should it go under.

Cheney aides supplied a copy of that policy to us -- blacking out only some personal information about Cheney -- which we have posted here publicly for the first time.

Stock Options

That still would leave the possibility that Cheney could profit from his Halliburton stock options if the company's stock rises in value. However, Cheney and his wife Lynne have assigned any future profits from their stock options in Halliburton and several other companies to charity. And we're not just taking the Cheney's word for this -- we asked for a copy of the legal agreement they signed, which we post here publicly for the first time.

The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education, a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.

The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later.

The options owned by the Cheney's have been valued at nearly $8 million, his attorney says. Such valuations are rough estimates only -- the actual value will depend on what happens to stock prices in the future, which of course can't be known beforehand. But it is clear that giving up rights to the future profits constitutes a significant financial sacrifice, and a sizable donation to the chosen charities.

"Financial Interest"

Democrats have taken issue with Cheney's statement to Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press Sept. 14, 2003, when he said he had no "financial interest" in Halliburton:

Cheney (Sept. 14, 2003): I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years. And as vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government.

Shortly after that, Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg released a legal analysis he'd requested from the Congressional Research Service. Without naming Cheney, the memo concluded a federal official in his position -- with deferred compensation covered by insurance, and stock options whose after-tax profits had been assigned to charity -- would still retain an "interest" that must be reported on an official's annual disclosure forms. And in fact, Cheney does report his options and deferred salary each year.

But the memo reached no firm conclusion as to whether such options or salary constitute an "interest" that would pose a legal conflict. It said "it is not clear" whether assigning option profits to charity would theoretically remove a potential conflict, adding, "no specific published rulings were found on the subject." And it said that insuring deferred compensation "might" remove it as a problem under conflict of interest laws.

Actually, the plain language of the Office of Government Ethics regulations on this matter seems clear enough. The regulations state: "The term financial interest means the potential for gain or loss to the employee . . . as a result of governmental action on the particular matter." So by removing the "potential for gain or loss" Cheney has solid grounds to argue that he has removed any "financial interest" that would pose a conflict under feder...

Posted by pontificus at 10/22/2007 @ 10:20am
Posted by MASK 10/22/2007 @ 09:22am

PEOPLE LOVE DICK EVERYWHERE!

RESULTS 1 - 10 OF ABOUT 947,000 FOR DICK CHENEY FAN CLUB. (0.16 SECONDS)

Choice Cheney Quotes [dickcheneyfanclub.org]

Early in his professional life, Dick Cheney was a cook on Union Pacific Railroad and a fudge stirrer in candy factory. [dickcheneyfanclub.org]

American Girls for Dick [tinyurl.com]

We Love Dick! [freerepublic.com]

Official Bio [whitehouse.org]

Get your memorabilia [cafepress.com]

Canada loves him, too! [tinyurl.com]

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2007 @ 10:23am
Posted by SRJENKINS 10/22/2007 @ 09:25am

We don't know all the facts because there has been no investigation. There surely would have been if he would have been head of a major corporation and engaged in the same behavior.

I already told you that the GAO had conducted an investigation of the contracts and found nothing improper. That's called due process. If you want to see the report, contact factcheck.org and ask them for it or get it from the GAO yourself. The Democrats in Congress seem satisfied - if you want to pursue it on your own, go do your own investigation, and if you find anything to support your contentions, by all means let the rest of the world know. In the meantime, it might help your credibility if you come up with some bases for your accusations other than your seemingly boundless suspicions.

Posted by pontificus at 10/22/2007 @ 10:30am
The Democrats in Congress seem satisfied -

Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/22/2007 @ 10:30am

the true measure of truth!

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2007 @ 10:32am
Posted by MASK 10/22/2007 @ 09:22am

Gotta say, always curious as to who the 18% who like Dick Cheney, actually were.

Glad to meet ya!

You're right, you've met one. We are fortunate to have people like Dick Cheney in public service. I'll take him over your Hillary Clinton any day. Any day!

Posted by pontificus at 10/22/2007 @ 10:33am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/22/2007 @ 10:32am

the true measure of truth!

It's one measure - certainly with a lot more credibility than the biases and prejudices of people like SRJENKINS.

Posted by pontificus at 10/22/2007 @ 10:35am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/22/2007 @ 10:33am

Given I'm sure you think the "18% approval ratings for Cheney" polls are phoney (like the 70% disapprovals for the war)....how many of the "majority of the American people" like the guy?

55%..65%...low 70s?

Posted by Mask at 10/22/2007 @ 10:42am
I'll take him over your Hillary Clinton any day. Any day!

Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/22/2007 @ 10:33am

plus �a change, plus c'est la m�me chose.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2007 @ 10:47am
Pontificus,

Yes, Cheney the self-made man embarked upon a most principled journey to utilize his comparative advantage as ruthless profiteer of government largesse and tax payer subsidized resources for private profit. But, who can fault this political man cashing in on his service to "the people"? Cheney is not the first, nor the last to cravenly conflate the so-called "national" interest for the "people's."

"Government spends a lot of money, but it doesn't build factories .... The federal government's job is not to manage or control the economy...." -- Dick Cheney

During the 2000 debate with Senator Lieberman, in referring to the $44 million he received for five year's work at Halliburton -- Cheney said, "I tell you that the government had absolutely nothing to do with it." But it was Cheney himself who as Secretary of Defense paid Brown & Root Services, a Halliburton subsidiary, $9 million to conduct a study that led to the creation of the logistics contract (LOGCAP) that first went to KBR in 1992 and has allowed Halliburton to rise to the top of the Army's list of contractors today. Halliburton's LOGCAP III contract for its work in Iraq is worth up to $9.2 billion, while its oil restoration contract is worth up to $8.2 billion. Moreover, U.S. taxpayer-supported financing for Halliburton's overseas oil projects since 1992 is valued at more than $7.8 billion. No corporation has benefited more from the World Bank's fossil fuel extractive project than Halliburton. Since 1992, the U.S.-taxpayer financed World Bank approved more than $2.5 billion in financing for 13 Halliburton projects.

Doors opened for Halliburton while U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney was the company's CEO--especially doors in Washington. While Cheney was in charge of Halliburton, he parlayed political connections and taxpayer assistance into a dramatic global expansion that was fueled through corporate welfare. These corporate welfare checks, paid for by U.S. taxpayers, came in the form of subsidies from the World Bank Group, the Export-Import Bank (ExIm), and other international lending institutions.

No corporation has benefited more from the World Bank's fossil fuel extractive project than Halliburton. Since 1992, the Bank approved more than $2.5 billion in financing for 13 Halliburton projects.

The Export-Import Bank is an even greater financier of Halliburton's global expansion. Since 1992, ExIm's board has approved more than $4.2 billion for 20 Halliburton projects.

Other U.S. taxpayer-financed institutions, including the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and regional development banks, tossed in another $1.1 billion for Halliburton-related projects, bringing the overall total U.S. taxpayer-supported financing for Halliburton's overseas projects since 1992 to more than $7.8 billion.

These institutions support Halliburton projects that span the world, from the coal mines of India to the oil fields of Chad and Colombia. Some of these corporate welfare projects are now under government investigation, such as the Nigeria LNG plant, where not only are Halliburton representatives accused of corrupt transactions, they are also accused, by Nigerian activists, of complicity in the violent suppression of dissent and relocation of Bonny Islanders. This project received $235 million in financial support from ExIm and the African Development Bank in 2002.

When the World Bank and ExIm become involved in Halliburton projects, they provide a cloak of legitimacy to the company's business deals with some of the world's most unsavory governments. Additionally, the entire practice of providing government loans for fossil fuel development is under fire, even from the World Bank itself. A vast body of evidence shows that public money is being used to perpetuate an industry that is at the root of climate change, wars, corruption, and a widening gap between rich and poor. These systemic troubles led a January 2004 World Bank-commissioned study, the Extractive Industries Review, to recommend that the Bank get out of the oil extraction business altogether. -- CorpWatch.org

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/guide.htm

Posted by Oustbush at 10/22/2007 @ 10:51am
Posted by MASK 10/22/2007 @ 10:42am

Given I'm sure you think the "18% approval ratings for Cheney" polls are phoney (like the 70% disapprovals for the war)....how many of the "majority of the American people" like the guy?

55%..65%...low 70s?

When we get the opportunity to do a reality check on your popularity polls by comparing them to the results of an actual vote in Congress, I'll get back to you on that.

Posted by pontificus at 10/22/2007 @ 11:14am
Yes, Cheney the self-made man embarked upon a most principled journey to utilize his comparative advantage as ruthless profiteer of government largesse and tax payer subsidized resources for private profit.

First of all, the term 'profiteer' (like 'social justice') is a meaningless buzz word concocted by leftists to elicit a Pavlovian response from the indoctrinated masses. It has little or no intrinsic semantic value outside of such uses.

Second, the entire country runs on 'private profit'. That's how our system works. Since I've already shown that there is no known basis for concluding that Cheney has benefited personally from any of his decisions as VP, I'm at a loss as to how your statement can have any meaning outside of a simple knee-jerk rejection of capitalism itself.

But, who can fault this political man cashing in on his service to "the people"? Cheney is not the first, nor the last to cravenly conflate the so-called "national" interest for the "people's."4

Again, this sounds like gibberish to me. What's the difference between the 'national interest' and the 'people's interest'?

Posted by pontificus at 10/22/2007 @ 11:20am
"Principle is OK up to a certain point, but principle doesn't do any good if you lose."

richard cheney

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2007 @ 11:32am
"Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow."

richard cheney

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2007 @ 11:33am
"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.... Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq."

richard cheney

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2007 @ 11:34am
"Instead of being the leader of an international coalition that came and reversed aggression, and restored civil order, if you will, in that part of the world, we shift and become the imperial power who's coming in willy-nilly, occupying national capitals, taking down governments that we disagree with, that we don't like."

richard cheney

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2007 @ 11:38am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/22/2007 @ 11:38am

It's a familiar refrain among those of you on the left who seem to forget that 9/11 ever happened, to think that nothing changed that day.

Posted by pontificus at 10/22/2007 @ 12:41pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/22/2007 @ 12:41pm

why did 9/11 happen?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2007 @ 1:10pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/22/2007 @ 10:20am

A link would have sufficed.

First, I've never seen the Kerry commercials, so your claims that somehow they are my source of information are false.

Second, Factcheck's defense is based on the fact that Cheny was entitled to this compensation regardless of whether Halliburton recieved the contracts or not. This was not my argument.

My objection is that the office of the Vice President was involved in awarding Halliburton a no-bid contract worth billions. The GAO report concluded that the DOD selection was legal because "[a]ccording to DOD, there was only one source with the capability to perform emergency repairs to the oil infrastructure given (1) the classified nature of the planning efforts, (2) the contractor's role in those efforts, and (3) the imminent commencement of hostilities."

I find (2) rather interesting. Contractor happens to be in a unique position because of the contractor's role in classified planning efforts? I find that fact rather convenient.

You also fail to point out key details about the report like this one: "We did not review contracts that were funded entirely with international or Iraqi national funds, such as funds seized after the 1991 Gulf War or funds that were discovered during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. We also did not review contracts or task orders that were used only for support of military operations or grants and cooperative agreements awarded to international or nongovernmental organizations."

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04605.pdf

FactCheck.org, of course, was focused on the political advertisement. I'm more interested in the backroom deals that undoubtably went on, and how Cheney used his position of power to give favors to his friends on my dime. I also suspect that there will be a nice consulting gig for him at the end of it all where he will be able to cash in on all that goodwill - which doesn't show up on his financial reporting.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2007 @ 1:47pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/22/2007 @ 11:20am | ignore this person

Pontificus,

Obviously, your mind managers at the Ministry of Truth have not programmed you to perceive the unsavory behavior of war profiteering as socially unacceptable, though such treacherous "liberals" as President Lincoln, described those engaged in it as "worse than traitors." Perhaps, American ceo's will use this word (found in the Oxford dictionary--look for yourself) on their resumes or as marketing material for campaign commercials when seeking public office as "our" representative.

As for the use of "meaningless buzz" words with "little or no intrinsic semantic value outside of such uses" as "indocrination of the masses," your pathological debasement of the term socialism is a crude display of just how pathetic and floundering are those using terminology and concepts beyond their intellectual hardware.

You swagger onto this forum throwing around "socialism this, socialism that"...but what are you referring to? The ideas of Anton Pannekeok, Rosa Luxemburg, Rudolf Rocker, Karl Marx? Do you know the difference between Libertarian Socialism and Leninist Authoritarianism? It's obvious that such ideas are but rudimentary concepts with which you expand into absurd cartoons fanciful to your primtive ideology, most of which is the scripted, regurgitated talk radio drivel posted endlessly by you and the other prole hacks.

You sermonize on behalf of autocratic governance of the economy in which neither the local community nor the work force has any meaningful role, while railing against the very same government in alliance and partnership with the private "free enterprise" system you claim to be distinct and seperate. Halliburton's growth and prosperity runs parallel with the tax payer subsidies bequeathed it by the federal government following Cheney's role in Bush the father's term. For you it's perfectly uncontradictory to expand the role of government welfare in the corporate sector, while removing it from the grasp of individual citizens. The world of the corporate and the government are so foreign to each other, according to rightwing doctrine-dogma, and yet, I do not see very many Howard Zinn, Amy Goodman (leftists supposedly manipulating and running media and govt policies/decisions) types participating or working in our government--but I do recognize the vast ranks of corporate executives, lawyers and financial investors moving freely between political office, lobby firms and the private industry.

Posted by Oustbush at 10/22/2007 @ 1:50pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/22/2007 @ 11:32am

"Principle is OK up to a certain point, but principle doesn't do any good if you lose."

richard cheney

Another way of putting this would be 'The Constitution is not a suicide pact.' This is the justification for a lot of wartime measures, including Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Seems like a reasonable statement to me.

Posted by pontificus at 10/22/2007 @ 2:04pm
Posted by OUSTBUSH 10/22/2007 @ 1:50pm

You swagger onto this forum throwing around "socialism this, socialism that"...but what are you referring to? The ideas of Anton Pannekeok, Rosa Luxemburg, Rudolf Rocker, Karl Marx? Do you know the difference between Libertarian Socialism and Leninist Authoritarianism? It's obvious that such ideas are but rudimentary concepts with which you expand into absurd cartoons fanciful to your primtive ideology, most of which is the scripted, regurgitated talk radio drivel posted endlessly by you and the other prole hacks.

Oh, gee perhaps you could educate me, then. Were the six millions slaughtered in Cambodia murdered according to the principles of Rosa Luxemborg, or Karl Marx? Was Stalin's starvation of 8 million Ukrainian peasants derived from the requirements of Rocker? Mao's murder of 10 million peasants? Which type of socialism did that result from? The collapse of Eastern Europe? Oh, please enlighten me as if all those differences amount to a fucking hill of beans.

Posted by pontificus at 10/22/2007 @ 2:07pm
From the very short-lived blow-on-wrist "Hillary's Chinadtown Express" thread.......

...have you ever asked why 9/11 happened?

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/21/2007 @ 2:10pm

Maybe Mr. Reagan, Bush `41 and Clinton fought the War on the cheap and either ignored or cut out from trouble spots too soon? Took easy way out by lobbing crusie missiles? Didn't take out Saddam in 1991?

Guess someday, there will be some Historical Society gathering during which they can decide the "why"! Thing is, even today, there are arguments over the "why"s of Pearl Harbor, the atomic bombings of Japan, The Bermuda Triangle, UFOs.....:)

Posted by HAPPY 10/21/2007 @ 5:35pm

Posted by Happy at 10/22/2007 @ 2:17pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 10/22/2007 @ 1:47pm

I'm more interested in the backroom deals that undoubtably went on, and how Cheney used his position of power to give favors to his friends on my dime. I also suspect that there will be a nice consulting gig for him at the end of it all where he will be able to cash in on all that goodwill - which doesn't show up on his financial reporting.

Thus, it appears that you have yielded the point that you have no evidence that Cheney has benefited financially from the war. I'm not sure why you think Cheney would be interested in making other people, even his friends rich, and not himself. Perhaps you are presuming some future quid pro quo, and thus you are basing your accusations on events which even you must admit have not completely happened yet. Please let us all know when you find something to justify your suspicions. In the meantime, perhaps you could admit that you have nothing else to go on.

Posted by pontificus at 10/22/2007 @ 2:17pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/22/2007 @ 2:04pm | ignore this person

This is just more flub dub from PONTI who actually believes L'America is a place somewhere over the rainbow right nextdoor to heaven and therefore eternally bedeviled by the agents of hell. The only war is the one being waged against the el americano, who proves day after day an incredible ignorance of true liberty, an insatiable appetite for swill and an unresisting acceptance of the most asinine hogwash that hems him in more each day - to the delight of his daffy masters. The bred-in-the-bone credulity of the typical american bumpkin is even more impressive when considering the damning facts that militate against the swarm of bogus threats, moronic mythology and baseless stories he uses to confect his picture of the world and his precarious position even in the supposed comfort of his own home in the land who Yahweh Himself has an uncanny predilection for.

It takes a special aggregation of idiots to allow such blatanly heinous trimmers to not only foist such an endless anthology of nonsense upon them, but foment an atomosphere under which the idiots actually clamor for more corruption, thievery, skullduggery and obscurantism that are all facilitated and propagated by the stalking-horse called the holy war on terror aimed at protecting them when in fact it only brings them farther from salvation. Here's a simple example of the stupidity that passes for intelligence in the USA: You believe that missiles coming at you, say, from Russia, at over 2000 mph can be intercepted by your rocket defense program yet you can't intercept phony bombs being planted across airports in your nation that travel along airport conveyer belts at about 2 mph. But hey, don't let reality interfere with your constantly assailed emotions!!

Posted by chimichenga at 10/22/2007 @ 2:48pm
Posted by HAPPY 10/22/2007 @ 2:17pm

i wanted to see pontiflogic in action.

thanks, however, for your concern.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2007 @ 2:56pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/22/2007 @ 2:04pm

And PONTI, honest broker that he is, will CONTINUE to support such extra-Constitutional matters and Presidential authority in war-time.....

even if Hillary becomes President!

Isn't that right, PONTI?

Posted by Mask at 10/22/2007 @ 3:29pm
Maybe Mr. Reagan, Bush `41 and Clinton fought the War on the cheap and either ignored or cut out from trouble spots too soon?----Posted by HAPPY 10/21/2007 @ 5:35pm ----Posted by HAPPY 10/22/2007 @ 2:17pm

I'm sorry, HAPP....did I just read this right?

You're blaming not only Clinton, not only Bush-41...but REAGAN for causing 9/11!??!?!?!

Posted by Mask at 10/22/2007 @ 3:32pm
...but REAGAN for causing 9/11!??!?!?!

Posted by MASK 10/22/2007 @ 3:32pm

"blame" is too strong of word.....The Gipper had bigger fish to fry....which he fried beautifully....one could argue we had no business going into Lebannon, but we left in haste which could've given rise to OBL's later audacity to mount 9/11!

Today, we should ALL KNOW which "bigger fish" needs to be fried but most importantly, the CIC and our military knows!

Posted by Happy at 10/22/2007 @ 3:43pm
Pontificus,

To begin, I'd say the "six million Cambodians" (your numbers are not accurate, but the point is acknowledged for arguments sake) were slaughtered by drones such as yourself cheerfully supporting American foreign policy while it marches forward ignorant of the consequences; armed only with the necessary hubris with which to carry out the latest American-style capitalist jihad. Contrary to what your leaders stamp into your feeble brain, there was no demcratic government in the South Vietnam--just institutional corruption and massacre of the citizenry. Just so long as it doesn't speak in tones conjuring shared goals, etc (keywords for the dreaded "socialism")...

The entire Indochina crusade was undertaken with full recognition by our government that great majority in Vietnam were opposed to French imperialist rule, followed our own. Pentagon Paper documents show that our government policy planners were aware that elections were impossible in the South, due to popular opposition to the murderous government installed by the US. Of course, well before the North Vietnamese appeared in the South, Americans were slaughtering the peasants there to such a degree as to make Northern assistance inevitable. You, Pontificus, have the the legitimate excuse of ignorance, our government does not share your special handicap. Documents from the Pentagon Papers reveal a different version of events and admission from the Ten Minutes Hate variety you're so accustomed to ( Translation:your handlers say different things to one another than what is fed to the livestock-like minions they farm and manage).

The war was then escalated beyond Vietnam into Laos and Cambodia. This is where you share responsibility for destroying a poor nation barely aware it was such an entity; your genocidal carpet bombing and chemical warfare unleashed on innocent civilians was the fertilizer for extremists taking power in a nation raped to the core by American aggression. It was the Vietnamese, somehow evading the theory of jackasses called "the Dominoes," (an American invention typical for incomprehensiveness and crass simplification), which ended the reign of Pol Pot. Our government then set about to fight for the recognition of the Khmer Rouge as legal guardian of the Cambodian people for the next decade and a half. You, of course, dazzle us with your contextual understanding of the socialist ideas you so vigorously denounce. Why would anyone consider such irrelevancies as cultural history, regional influence, language, nationalism within society,etc.? No, you know that all ideas unfamiliar sounding must be unAmerican and godless communist filth and so on. From you we see universal conflation of governments as diverse as China, the old USSR, Cambodia, Chile-if you were questioned regarding our former coddling of the Pinochet's old junta, etc. To you, cultural, political history is as complex as a box of legoes.

Posted by Oustbush at 10/22/2007 @ 5:00pm
Posted by OUSTBUSH 10/22/2007 @ 5:00pm

keep on typing!

that's great.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2007 @ 5:43pm
Posted by HAPPY 10/22/2007 @ 3:43pm

Figured you'd backpedal away quickly from THAT one, HAPP.

What would your fellow right-wingers say about a guy who "seemed" to be blaming Reagan for 9/11!?!?!?!?!

Posted by Mask at 10/22/2007 @ 9:15pm
Posted by MASK 10/22/2007 @ 9:15pm

Sometimes, your mild twisting of my comments are just too much!

Hindsight for every single person is 20/20, no? Could Reagan done more? How hard is that to accept? Now, of the POTUS I mentioned, which one (hint: served by Richard Clark who was specifically charged to work on terrorism) really could've done a LOT MORE? Remember, by this time, OBL had compiled quite a resume at our expense! Another hint: "more of the same" is running for POTUS!

Posted by Happy at 10/22/2007 @ 10:38pm
Hindsight for every single person is 20/20, no?

Posted by HAPPY 10/22/2007 @ 10:38pm

actually, for many, especially those who worship St. Ronald, their vision is quite myopic

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2007 @ 10:47pm
...especially those who worship St. Ronald, their vision is quite myopic

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/22/2007 @ 10:47pm

More apt today for those who worship Clinton and thinks Hillary is the ticket! The most-Reagan like Thompson doesn't seem to be doing all that well, among the GOP....but among Dems, Myopia seems rather more rampant !

Posted by Happy at 10/22/2007 @ 11:30pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/22/2007 @ 2:17pm

Let's review my claims in my post - 10/21/2007 @ 3:30pm

It is a fact that Cheney has recieved deferred compensation from Halliburton while being Vice President.

Your preferred source, FactCheck.org, confirms this claim.

http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html

It is also a fact that Halliburton has recieved government no bid contracts.

GAO confirmed.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04605.pdf

There is some evidence that Cheney was involved in that decision...

Supported by the MoveOn rebuttal.

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Moveon_Rebuttal.pdf

...but there has never been an investigation. One is clearly warranted.

In your world, apparently evidence comes before the investigation. What we do have is enough information to know that a closer look is required.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2007 @ 11:42pm
Posted by HAPPY 10/22/2007 @ 11:30pm

phred is a like a lobotomized reagan.

imagine that.

we're doomed!

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2007 @ 12:28am
most excellent posts, oustbush!

:)

Posted by loveloki at 10/23/2007 @ 01:10am
Hindsight for every single person is 20/20, no? Could Reagan done more? How hard is that to accept? ----Posted by HAPPY 10/22/2007 @ 10:38pm

Seriously, HAPP, put the shovel down, stop digging, and just walk away....heheh

You REALLY don't want to get RIO, PONTIFICUS, SLIVER, etc. thinking that you are ACTUALLY saying that Reagan helped to contribute to 9/11 happening....do ya???

Posted by Mask at 10/23/2007 @ 09:42am
Posted by OUSTBUSH 10/22/2007 @ 5:00pm

I can't believe I'm honoring this drivel with a response, but I guess I'll do it for the enlightenment of people who confuse randomly chosen big words along with convoluted and tortured reasoning, seasoned with knee-jerk anti-Americanism, with profundity. It is important to note, however, that such far-fetched rationalizations are standard poltical cant from those indoctrinated leftists whose only recognized absolute truth is that the US is always wrong.

To begin, I'd say the "six million Cambodians" (your numbers are not accurate, but the point is acknowledged for arguments sake) were slaughtered by drones such as yourself cheerfully supporting American foreign policy while it marches forward ignorant of the consequences; armed only with the necessary hubris with which to carry out the latest American-style capitalist jihad.

After I stopped laughing, I tried to make sense of this comment. Apparently, you're saying that the Khmer Rouge Communists who killed millions of Cambodians are the same thing as 'drones such as' myself' who are 'cheerfully supporting US policy'. Apparently, you think the Khmer Rouge was following some US policy. This is so fucked up, so profoundly stupid, I can only stand in awe, much less attempt to respond to it.

Posted by pontificus at 10/23/2007 @ 09:46am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/23/2007 @ 09:46am

...I tried to make sense of this comment. Apparently, you're saying that the Khmer Rouge Communists who killed millions of Cambodians are the same thing as 'drones such as' myself' who are 'cheerfully supporting US policy'. Apparently, you think the Khmer Rouge was following some US policy.

Apparently, you didn't try very hard. The obvious conclusion is that the same slavish support for an ideology that killed millions of Cambodians is killing Iraqis - and has been responsible for the deaths of El Salvador, Nicaragua and many other places around the world over many decades as a result of U.S. foreign policy.

Your problem is that you don't know how to render an argument because you can't bother to address it based on its merits. A few months ago, I believe you shared with all of us the definition of "straw man". Perhaps you can make an effort to remove them from your own argumentation.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/23/2007 @ 11:19am
After I stopped laughing, I tried to make sense of this comment. Apparently, you're saying that the Khmer Rouge Communists who killed millions of Cambodians are the same thing as 'drones such as' myself' who are 'cheerfully supporting US policy'. Apparently, you think the Khmer Rouge was following some US policy. This is so fucked up, so profoundly stupid, I can only stand in awe, much less attempt to respond to it.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/23/2007 @ 09:46am | ignore this person

Pontificus,

Ignorance whether authentic or contrived for convenience of argument is no excuse and does not mitigate your guilt for endorsing policies murderous to mass numbers of people. Feigned assertions that the illegal bombing of Cambodia and the resultant deaths of an estimated 600,000 innocent civilians, was a mere coincidence to the rise of Khmer Rouge fanaticism does nothing for your thread-bare, irrational narrative of how the world works. Many here would expect little from the likes of those signed up to follow and serve leaders welded to a stupid, reductionist policy recasting the numerous complexities of culture, history and politics into a brainless theory simplified and marketed as the "Domino Theory."

Posted by Oustbush at 10/23/2007 @ 12:39pm
If an Al Qaeda sympathizer and patron parked comfortably in the warmth of his Lazi-Boy recliner is too chickenshit to fight for his intellectualized utopia, well, he still shares culpability for whatever resulting consequences occur from those out there, in his name, spreading the word via sword, TNT, or cruise missile. Yes, Pontificus, that man is you, though decked out in Christian garb.

Posted by Oustbush at 10/23/2007 @ 12:56pm
Warm greetings to Loki, Frosty, and SRJenkins for your well intentioned attempts to point out to Pontificus that we share responsibilty for what diseased policies our leaders inflict upon other societies and people.

Posted by Oustbush at 10/23/2007 @ 1:02pm
Posted by OUSTBUSH 10/23/2007 @ 1:02pm

and thanks to you sir(ette) for putting down so eloquently what i can sometimes only feel.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2007 @ 2:14pm
Stark tapped out to Bush on the House floor! Go Dems!

Posted by woodyee at 10/23/2007 @ 7:13pm
it's interesting that those (the hamsters) who claim to believe in capitalism and it's functional requirement of competition would ever allow something like a monopoly to exist.

unless they really aren't what they claim they are

while it's true that both commies and fascists believed in state control of the media, for private enterprise the fascists still believed in competition. But the commies are all about monopolies. Which would make evangelic conservative support of private media monopolies... commie.

Posted by Will C. at 10/23/2007 @ 8:08pm
maybe that's why nixon went to commie china? and why the hamsters seem dead set on owning all the media after the washingoton post brought nixon down

Posted by Will C. at 10/23/2007 @ 8:10pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/23/2007 @ 7:55pm

I suppose you are familiar with the case Nicaragua v. United States that was heard in the International Court of Justice in 1986? I suppose you are also familiar with the School of the Americas - and the fact that many of the worst human rights abusers in Central and South America graduated from that school? Perhaps you remember Iran-Contra?

Apparently, in your estimation, these activities are justified because they were fighting "evil". I'm sorry. Terrorism is terrorism whether it is communist, socialist, Islamic, Judaic, Christian, or fascist in its ideology. And the United States has been convicted of "unlawful use of force" and should be held accountable for these other terrorist crimes as well.

Posted by srjenkins at 10/23/2007 @ 10:37pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 10/23/2007 @ 7:55pm

LVL's belief:

It is as twisted and ignorant a view of history as their complete unwillingness to acknowledge that the Islamic jihadist movement far more to do with carrying out the commands of the Quran than anything about US involvement in the Middle East.

Translation of Bin Laden from October 2004:

But after the injustice was so much and we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it occurred to my mind that we deal with the towers. And these special events that directly and personally affected me go back to 1982 and what happened when America gave permission for Israel to invade Lebanon. And assistance was given by the American sixth fleet...During those crucial moments, my mind was thinking about many things that are hard to describe. But they produced a feeling to refuse and reject injustice, and I had determination to punish the transgressors.

I know you like to read between the lines, but I'm inclined to believe that Bin Laden is telling the truth here. There is no secret Islam sauce. If you spend your time killing, torturing and terrorizing people, you will eventually reap what you have sown.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/

Posted by srjenkins at 10/23/2007 @ 10:50pm

John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

An Assault on Media Diversity and Democracy

posted by John Nichols on 10/18/2007 @ 3:21pm

John Nichols

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation

An Assault on Media Diversity and Democracy

posted by John Nichols on 10/18/2007 @ 3:21pm

Share this article

John Nichols

Archives

» The Beat

» Editor's Cut

» The Notion

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

» And Another Thing

» Altercation