AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > November > 14 > Entry
Will Republicans give President Obama a fair shake?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
“I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.” There’s a line that came back to haunt President Bush after his win in 2004.
Barack Obama wisely refrains from crowing about his political capital, despite an even larger win. Still, no one should expect Republicans to abandon principled disagreement, crucial to a true democracy. Yet when does patriotic dissent turn into obstruction? I fear that certain campaign tactics and the current state of the GOP might cloud any chance for an open-minded electorate.
Consider the view many mainstream conservatives have of Obama: a Muslim masquerading as a Christian, hiding possible ties to terrorism. President Bush has been roundly criticized for behavior many consider rash, even dangerous, yet no one ever accused him of being in bed with al-Qaida. Conservatives continue to share these alarming rumors, yet just what are their shared principles? A cohesive philosophy of governance would enable them to focus on distinguishing between policies that deserve support and those that deserve a battle. Right now, however, the only bond among Republicans is a mutual fear of Democrats in power.
Many saw the 2000 campaign as a “stolen” election, a poisonous stew of vote tampering and a highly partisan Supreme Court. Nonetheless, Democrats were comforted by Bush’s solidarity with Mayor Giuliani at Ground Zero; plenty even rooted for the direction of the war at one point. In 2003, a Los Angeles Times poll found that more than seven out of 10 independents and Democrats said that they supported our actions in Iraq.
Have the Democrats returned to grave distrust of their Republican president? Sure, along with many others who voted him into office. So let’s forget about who deserves “political capital”; with a troubled economy and two wars, there are bigger issues at stake. Instead let’s look back on a call for bipartisanship that we all found compelling.
In a tremendous concession speech, Sen. McCain graciously urged all his fellow citizens to offer President-elect Obama “our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together, to find the necessary compromises, to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity…”
Is that too much to ask? Only if you love winning more than you love your country.
Rebuttal
I’m utterly perplexed by Andy’s belief that those bitter, angry Republicans will try to undercut our new president instead of healing wounds and moving forward. Wait a second: For the last eight years, hasn’t it been the liberal ideologues who have been daily trashing our current president, practically seeming to hope he messed up the country just to prove how wrong we were to elect him?
The pre-election press proves the difference. Google “If Obama loses” and countless articles come up about possible riots, “liberal rage” demonstrations, petitions saying John McCain stole the election, how to become a Canadian citizen and so on. You’ll find David Swanson of Democrats.com encouraging a huge protest on Washington, or Jesse Jackson signing a “Pledge of Action” on www.nomorestolenelections.org. When one looks up “If McCain loses,” you see no advance talk of riots. Instead you see pre-election articles focused on the philosophical “direction of the Republican Party” questions that are, in fact, currently being debated.
Democrats may not believe this, but most conservatives are proud of the cultural step forward that Obama’s election represents, even as we disagree with his likely policy priorities. And most prominent conservative and party leaders have publicly issued calls to work with and, above all, pray for our president-elect. Indiana congressman Mike Pence recently told the Associated Press that Republican leaders would certainly work to counter the positions held by the overwhelming Democrat majority, but that, “It’s going to be a cheerful opposition.” And South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford penned an eloquent op-ed for CNN about looking honestly at the conservative failures, such as abandoning principles of spending and borrowing obscene amounts of money.
By contrast, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid publicly threatened to strip Sen. Joe Lieberman of leadership for supporting McCain. Not the best way to reject partisan politics as usual.
Going forward, conservative lawmakers will diligently work to oppose sweeping changes such as “redistribution-of-wealth” taxes, greater unionization, universal health care, and bailing out whatever industry asks for it. Yet all Americans hope that partisans on both sides will take the high road to act in the best interest of the country; which means avoiding the bitter rhetoric of the last decade. Of course, that may take a lot more prayer.
Services »
Comments
By USinUK
November 14, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
By contrast, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid publicly threatened to strip Sen. Joe Lieberman of leadership for supporting McCain.
QUICK SHAUNTI!!! Grab the fainting couch and clutch those pearls!!!
fercryingoutloud, Reid wasn’t talking about doing this because of a vote on the Senate floor or because of a speech Lieberman made. Lieberman was a featured speaker at the GOP convention. Lieberman campaigned for McCain. Lieberman went on national TV and called Obama’s patriotism into question.
frankly, they shouldn’t just strip him of his leadership, they should hang him by the short and curlies, if you ask me. if he likes the GOP so much, then why doesn’t he go and play in their sandbox?? (why - because he would lose his chairmanship and what little clout he still clings to)
this is definitely a case of “he left the party, the party hasn’t left him.”
By Ditto
November 14, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this
frankly, they shouldn’t just strip him of his leadership, they should hang him by the short and curlies, if you ask me.
ditto, strip him of all his chairmanships. scumbag.
By Ditto
November 14, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this
As for your defense of the Bru-meister, trust me, Hon. You have no idea the kind of things this man has said to the women here in the past, which accounts for the fact that so many left (he admits it when his mood swings contrite) and why I use other names to make a point, always in fear of his personal attack. But thanks so much for your special input just the same.
Ditto; Apparently someone missed all of yet another scumbag’s personal attacks against women in general, and K in particular, way back before USinUK’s time here.
By Billy
November 14, 2008 11:46 AM | Link to this
Is there a problem with the web page?
By Mara
November 14, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this
Billy! Long time no hear, bud! What’s been happening with you?
USinUK - I, too, have little sympathy for the “plight” of Joe Lieberman. Though I agree with all the points you made, I’d like to add another…dereliction of duty. As Chairman of the Senate Committee for Government Affairs, one of his duties is to provide a restraint on the Executive branch. Which he didn’t even attempt to do.
While Henry Waxman over in the House was investigating, sending out subpoena’s, holding hearings, and attempting to find out the facts of many of the Executive over-reaches…Lieberman, like the three monkeys, said nothing, saw nothing and heard nothing. He sat on his behind twiddling his thumbs while Bush and Cheney rode roughshod over the Constitution and the law.
Even if he hadn’t been the Republicans token Democrat for most of the Bush presidency, even if he hadn’t campaigned for his friend John McCain, even if he hadn’t pulled a Zell Miller at the Republican Convention…even if he hadn’t done any of these things, I’d still want to see him tossed for derelicition of duty.
By USinUK
November 14, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this
Mara -
Even if he hadn’t been the Republicans token Democrat for most of the Bush presidency, even if he hadn’t campaigned for his friend John McCain, even if he hadn’t pulled a Zell Miller at the Republican Convention…even if he hadn’t done any of these things, I’d still want to see him tossed for derelicition of duty.
testify!!!
By Billy
November 14, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this
Maybe it’s been fixed, but it lost my first post.
I was trying to say that Lieberman’s transgression was that he didn’t simply campaign for McCain; that would’ve been forgivable. The real offense was that in doing so he both denigrated Obama, playing along with the GOP politics of fear and smear, and campaigned for down-ticket Republicans including Senate candidates. That’s what was unforgivable in my eyes.
I also want to say how, well, perplexing it is that Shaunti is so “perplexed” at Andrea’s belief that the GOP will try to undermine Obama. I mean, even if you threw out the past year of questioning everything from his patriotism to his actual nationality, even if you threw out the entire Clinton administration, during which there was never a moment’s peace from the right-wing assault, even if you forgot everything that happened before today and everything that was outside the AJC walls, you’d still be left with Wooten’s blog: “Will Obama start out a loser?”
Yeah, Shaunti, y’all are totally behind the new guy, aren’t you?
By USinUK
November 14, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this
woohoo!!! heading home before 7:00 for the first time this week!!!
you guys have a good evening and a great Saturday - I will catch up on Sunday
By Gale
November 14, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this
I certainly don’t want Obama to get a free ride. The dangers of that should be apparent after Bush’s rubber stamp congress. We should be questioning his decisions. We should NOT be digging up dirt so we can distract everyone from the critical work ahead of us, repairing the economy and getting our troops back home. Each time a criticism is made, we should edit it from the perspective of: Is this really important in the grand scheme or is it just distracting us from the real work. If it is just a distraction, catalog it for the next election. Let us not spend the entire Obama administration rehashing character flaws that should not be the pulic interest.
By Billy
November 14, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this
Well, Mara, I’ve left the workforce and become a stay-at-home dad. The wife’s experience and the benefits available to us through her (read: health insurance) meant her returning to work made more financial sense than anything. My months-long absence was due mostly to changing from an office-based job to an outdoor job. It was a nice change, and I lost 25 lbs.
But now I’m at home with the kids (3 & 1) so my time will be pretty sporadic. I’m not one to underappreciate what a mom does, even if I don’t always show it, but I still wasn’t prepared for the burden it is. Especially when both kids are croupy. Good times…
By Gale
November 14, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this
make that public, not pulic.
By Mara
November 14, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this
Billy, don’t forget the “Impeach Obama” websites that have already popped up in the internets…even before he gets sworn in.
Shaunti goes into high dudgeon about the way Democrats railed against George W. Bush but seems to forget how much the early animosity had to do with the way the Republicans hounded Bill Clinton til the very end and disgust at the high-handed (and highly suspect) outcome of the 2000 election. She gives no credit for rallying ‘round the president after 9/11, nor does she seem to understand why that support dwindled in the lead-up to Iraq nor why it died completely after we found out how we were lied to and manipulated. Maybe not by Bush himself but definietly by his surrogates.
Shaunti, like many Republicans, feels entitled to undermine Obama even before he gets started because she thinks that the distaste and contempt many of us feel for the Worst. President. Ever. is centered on the person of George W Bush and not his policies.
To “an eye for an eye” thinkers, that permits them to judge Obama not on what he does, but on who they think he is.
Of course, that’s just the opinion of one liberal…
By Bruno
November 14, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this
Apparently someone missed all of yet another scumbag’s personal attacks against women in general, and K in particular, way back before USinUK’s time here.
And apparently she also missed the personal attacks against men in general and B in particular by several of the women posters here before her time. It’s always a two way street, scumbag.
if you ask me. if he likes the GOP so much, then why doesn’t he go and play in their sandbox??
If y’all don’t want Joe Lieberman in the party, I’m sure the Republicans will welcome him with open arms. But then, you might lose your supermajority, which Reid and Obama don’t want. Out of curiosity, have any of you ever considered what led to Lieberman’s de facto desertion of the Democratic Party?? Reread Shaunti’s column for some clues.
By Mara
November 14, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this
Gale - I certainly don’t want Obama to get a free ride. The dangers of that should be apparent after Bush’s rubber stamp congress. We should be questioning his decisions.
Hear, hear!!!!!!!
And if Obama is the kind of man we voters believe him to be, he’ll welcome any legitimate scrutiny. If he is who we hope him to be, he won’t immediatly lawyer up and stonewall with “executive privelege” and “national security” excuses.
By Bruno
November 14, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this
Shaunti goes into high dudgeon about the way Democrats railed against George W. Bush but seems to forget how much the early animosity had to do with the way the Republicans hounded Bill Clinton til the very end and disgust at the high-handed (and highly suspect) outcome of the 2000 election.
Well, it looks like it’s going to be another long week of finger-pointing and rehashing the past, so I guess I’ll check back in next week with a (hopefully) more productive topic.
BTW, Mara, I didn’t get a chance to respond to your excellent post in support of Ron Paul last week. Ideologically, he appealed strongly to me. Unfortunately, due to a lukewarm personality, he wasn’t able to generate enough support to have a realistic chance of winning a national election. In addition, as I mentioned before, his message of limited government and personal responsibility isn’t very sexy, so doesn’t sell very well. The “free lunch” crowd would never go along with him.
By Bruno
November 14, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this
Well, Mara, I’ve left the workforce and become a stay-at-home dad.
Just what W2W needs: one more far-leftie who couldn’t recognize a balanced argument if it hit him in the head. Wimp.
By Billy
November 14, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this
I don’t think we have to worry about Obama getting a free ride. Faux News will largely go after whatever he wants to do and talk radio will almost exclusively demonize everything they can about him. The rest of the mainstream media will bring the usual false equivalence BS to the table. Olbermann appears liberal, but all we really know is that he’s been a harsh critic of Bush who has perhaps been turned off to conservatism over the past 8 years. I’d say he may give Obama a pass on things, which he likely will to some extent, but even he has been critical of Obama for things in the past. Rachel Maddow is the most overtly, unabasedly liberal on TV, but she’s bright and very much a watchdog when it comes to unchecked power.
No, Obama will not have a free ride, but even if he did, it’s a complete delusion to think he’d take the ride to a socialist society. He’s nowhere near as liberal as everyone made him out to be. Evidence? A bunch of conservative pundits, after his victory, decided to start talking about how much of a moderate he is. Which is what a lot of us leftists have been saying all along. If anything, you can expect me and many of my fellow progressives to spend the next 4 to 8 years voicing our disagreement with the administration a fair amount of the time.
By Dug, Florida
November 14, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this
I Will support Obama. He is President Elect. His words are strong but “his wallet is empty”.
We are falling into the bleak dismal world of Depression. Ross Perot said we would and he is right. We, the people, can go out with our credit cards and spend the economy back into shape, but we have no money. Excuses are sure to follow. Have a Nice Day db
By Bruno
November 14, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this
And if Obama is the kind of man we voters believe him to be, he’ll welcome any legitimate scrutiny. If he is who we hope him to be, he won’t immediatly lawyer up and stonewall with “executive privelege” and “national security” excuses.
Question for you, Mara: What do you think of Obama’s proposal to form a national “security force” which essentially answers only to him? Sounds kind of Gestapo-like to me.
Also, do you have an opinion about the “Fairness Doctrine”, by which radio stations which carry conservative talk shows would be forced to start carrying an equal amount of liberal talk shows? The fact is that liberal radio shows typically have extremely poor ratings (Air America anyone?). As such, in order to avoid the financial losses engendered by being legally forced to carry the liberal shows, many stations will instead be forced to cancel their commercially successful conservative shows. Rumor has it that the FTC appointee selected by Obama plans to make instituting the Fairness Doctrine a priority. My feeling is that if you don’t like the programming of a particular radio station, you can simply turn it off. There’s no need to get the government involved.
By Mara
November 14, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this
Bruno - Well, it looks like it’s going to be another long week of finger-pointing and rehashing the past
actually what I was trying to do was illustrate the point that neither party is innocent vis-a-vis the temper of politics today. In so far as finger pointing goes, Shaunti pointed at the last eight years of liberal contempt for Bush as an excuse for not giving Obama a chance to either succeed or fail without seeming to understand that Bush was a reaction to Clinton.
In the words of scolded children everywhere - Why are WE getting in trouble? THEY started it!
By Archie
November 14, 2008 1:46 PM | Link to this
My response to the topic question is no. As a group, no, republicans will not give Obama a fair shake. Shanti writes a good rebuttal overall acts a little obtuse because Lieberman was threatened because Lieberman has been back-slapping republicans for a long time and if you can’t support your party’s nominee then why should the party support you? Here in SC, once again I am embarrassed because you have a priest saying his members should not take communion because they voted for Obama as if Obama has been the only pro-choice president. I think I know what the real problem that priest has with Obama and it’s a shame that with all the prayer and Bible study, plain old, racial prejudice takes precedence. There will always be some individual republicans that will give any democratic president a fair shake but as a group nope it’s not going to happen.
By Bruno
November 14, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this
He’s nowhere near as liberal as everyone made him out to be. Evidence? A bunch of conservative pundits, after his victory, decided to start talking about how much of a moderate he is.
Who are you referring to, Billy? I’ve heard several conservative pundits, including Bill O’Reilly, state that they were going to keep an open mind and root for his success, but none that I know of are crowning Obama as any kind of moderate. His previous voting record has been strictly liberal (97% party-line voting as a Senator).
By Shannon, M.Div.
November 14, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this
Shaunti forgets one of the reasons there were “If Obama loses” statements on numerous websites: the polls, directly tying this back to the 2000 election (I think most of us can agree that we prefer the voters decide elections rather than the courts).
“If Obama loses” when all the polls had him ahead, then there would be reason to question the justice of the election. I don’t like polls for policy issues, but they’re generally right on elections. “If Obama loses” is simply a reflection of the worry coming back from 2000. I for one will never believe that Bush fairly won in 2000; recounts called Gore the Florida winner, but the Supreme Court did not allow the process to play out.
And in 2000, I voted for Bush.
By k
November 14, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this
I like Olbermann for the most part, but this year he started “going O’Reilley” on us. Some nights, it was like watching the flip side of the same coin. Valid, rational criticism started leaning toward the same type of emotional cattle prods you expect from Fox “news.” During primary season, KO stopped pretending to be impartial and showed open contempt for Hillary, with unfettered gushing for Obama. Now that the outcome has been decided, he seems to be easing up a bit, but I’m still tired of hearing the “who won the ratings” stats. Who the FLIP cares? Whether he’ll be fairly critical of the Obama administration remains to be seen.
Hannity is, as always, all in for the long haul on daily fear and outrage. His voice seems to be higher and more intense in his fearmongering in the past week, as if there were an electric tootbrush up his butt. Hmmm… (lost a bet, maybe?)
I have a hard time taking the right-wing “BE AFRAID!” mantra seriously, since (a) Obama has not yet served a single day as President, and (b) I just endured seven years and 10 months of “Omygod, I never thought it could be THIS freaking disastrous!!!!” and am, thus far, still standing. It’s kind of like hearing a man whine about a hangnail to Sunshine, whose torso is painfully stretched and her fetus is kicking the crap out of her kidneys whenever she tries to sleep.
By Gale
November 14, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this
Fairness Doctrine. How can anyone require a commercial station to air anything? Their air time is paid programming.
By The Other Jack
November 14, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this
Obama will get all the respect and fairness that liberals gave Bush, even though the media ia already launching a campaign of respecting the office (now that we have installed our candidate).
By Billy
November 14, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this
Big words coming from a liar, Bruno.
By Bruno
November 14, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this
In so far as finger pointing goes, Shaunti pointed at the last eight years of liberal contempt for Bush as an excuse for not giving Obama a chance to either succeed or fail without seeming to understand that Bush was a reaction to Clinton.
Based on the gracious reaction of most of the conservative TV and radio hosts that I’ve been listening to (Neal Boortz, Herman Cain, Bill O’Reilly), there appears to be a general feeling of support for Obama leading our country in a positive direction. Hopefully he won’t let us down by leading us further down the path of socialism that Bush and the current Congress have started. All of these “bailouts”, especially for the US auto industry, are wrong, wrong, wrong in my opinion.
By Bruno
November 14, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this
In the words of scolded children everywhere - Why are WE getting in trouble? THEY started it!
Hopefully the naaana-naaana-naaanas coming from your side of the aisle will settle down soon as well. For all of the previous talk of the “divisive politics” of the Republicans, I think it was pretty poor on the part of several of the posters here to crow like that.
Let the healing begin!
By The Other Jack
November 14, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this
The board’s response to the Lieberman issue say that liberals will not tolerate opposing views. If you dare to disagree, you should lose your career, your life.
Get ready conservatives. You think we have to go underground, now? Give the fascist a year to enforce their “no opposition demands.” Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly will be gone and FOX News will be under congressional investigation.
Get ready for the fourth Reich, folks. There is nothing in Washington to stop the madness.
By Mara
November 14, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this
Bruno - What do you think of Obama’s proposal to form a national “security force” which essentially answers only to him? Sounds kind of Gestapo-like to me
then you should do a bit more research on what exactly this “security force’ would entail. To save you some time, here’s an excert from an “American Thinker” article regarding the issue -
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve.”” - Barak Obama, July 2, ‘08.
(The immediate context for that amazing statement was a preview of parts of his plan to vastly expand community service opportunities for Americans of nearly all ages.)
He plans to double the Peace Corps’ budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps. Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps. Here a corps - there a corps - everywhere a corps corps.
It seems clear that he meant to say, in effect, that the security of the nation is as dependent on its unarmed community service providers as it is on its armed military personnel. Even the nomenclature “corps,” as in Peace Corps, carries a martial connotation as does the name, Salvation Army. His point: national security begins with civilians. It’s a message like the one America’s home front heard throughout World War II. Except in his case, he means to marshal volunteers for social service and economic equality while saving the environment.
————————————————————————————————-IMO, all he’s saying with this “civilian security force” is that we ALL have responsiblity for our national security.
as for the “Fairness Docrine”, darlin’ that there is what we call “a red herring”. Maybe there are five guys that think this is an issue, and none of them are in a position of leadership. It ain’t gonna happen, but it helps get the right-wing all hysterical and energized, so the echo chamber continues to cite it.
By chuck
November 14, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this
Good. Afternoon. Everybody.
Mara, had to weigh in on this:
…because she thinks that the distaste and contempt many of us feel for the Worst. President. Ever. is centered on the person of George W Bush and not his policies.
So Mara, during the first 6 years of the Bush Presidency when unemployment was super low, Interest rates were at historic lows, the stock market was at historic highs, graduation rates were up, SAT scores were up, I’m just wondering…which POLICIES were so bad that ya’ll had to lambast him AT EVERY TURN, MOCKING EVERYTHING HE SAID, USING VILE HATEFUL SPEECH, CALLING HIM AN IDIOT, AND MUCH WORSE? WHICH POLICIES?
ONE POLICY: The war in Iraq, which by the way has kept us safe since 911, which has displaced a despot who IF HE HAD THE MEANS, would have found a way to attack us or support those who would, which BTW is within a couple of months of being a complete success, creating a democracy and a FRIEND in the middle east that we otherwise would not have had. No that couldn’t be it.
NOPE, YA’LL JUST HATED BUSH. PERIOD. END.OF.STORY.
History will show that Bush was a GOOD, though not GREAT President. Those are the facts. Remember this prediction in about 20 years when you are talking to your grand kids about what I fear will be a disastrous next 4 years for America.
By Billy
November 14, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this
Didn’t you say you were leaving until next week, Brudouche?
Off the top of my head, Bill Kristol, I believe, and I want to say Karl Rove said something similar. Others? I dunno, no names pop in right away. And maybe it’s not a bunch. My bad.
His voting record has most definitely NOT been “strictly liberal”, and your adherence to party labels as political ideology is evident when you equate the Democratic Party stance with being liberal. Anywhere else in the western world the Democrats would be considered a center-right party.
Nice try. Now leave.
By kathy4change
November 14, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this
Americans have little control over what happens with Lieberman but his constituents have a BIG say in 2010. I do not live in Ct but have many friends and relatives in that state and plan to campaign to defeat him should he run again! He is a weasel who would sell out his own Mother! Payback will be a b__ch! As for Bush and Cheney, they enjoyed 8 years of secret government and trampling of our Constitution and our Constitutional rights. I hope there is some way America can get back at them for their abuses of power! Bush and Cheney in handcuffs comes to mind. I think they will be branded by historians as two of the worst to ever serve as Pres and VPres.
By Bruno
November 14, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this
Fairness Doctrine. How can anyone require a commercial station to air anything? Their air time is paid programming.
Good question, Gale. Do some googling, and your eyes will be opened as to the “Fairness” of the Democrats. Though it was a small blip on the radar screen, I thought it was telling that Obama kicked three newspaper reporters off of his plane whose employers chose to endorse McCain. But I’m not going to waste my time on that small potatoes (hello, Quayle). I’ll wait to see if the UnFairness Doctrine is revived before bringing out the big guns.
Speaking of guns, Obama is already on record as saying that he opposes private ownership of handguns.
By Billy
November 14, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this
By Bruno November 14, 2008 1:20 PM
Well, Mara, I’ve left the workforce and become a stay-at-home dad.
Just what W2W needs: one more far-leftie who couldn’t recognize a balanced argument if it hit him in the head. Wimp.By Bruno November 14, 2008 2:03 PM
Let the healing begin!
Way to get things started.
By Bruno
November 14, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this
IMO, all he’s saying with this “civilian security force” is that we ALL have responsiblity for our national security.
And again, exactly who will be in charge of this force?
as for the “Fairness Docrine”, darlin’ that there is what we call “a red herring”. Maybe there are five guys that think this is an issue, and none of them are in a position of leadership. It ain’t gonna happen, but it helps get the right-wing all hysterical and energized, so the echo chamber continues to cite it.
Hopefully you are right, Mara. The FTC committee to decide upon it will, coincidentally, consist of “five guys”, three of which will be in Obama’s pocket. We’ll hold our breath and see how “fair” they will be. In addition to kicking the three reporters from his plane whose papers disagreed with him, Obama has specifically castigated Fox news several times. Are you sure that he’s open to honest scrutiny??
By Bruno
November 14, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this
Way to get things started
Sorry, bro’, but I’m from the old school. No woman has ever supported me, though I’ve supported several over the years.
His voting record has most definitely NOT been “strictly liberal”
Well, you and JokesOn will get along well, then. He was named the most liberal Senator based upon his voting record by the National Journal who does an annual rating of Senators. According to the Congressional Quarterly he has voted strictly along party lines more than 97% of the time. If all of that somehow equates to “centrist”, “moderate” or “center-right” to you, then apparently we don’t evaluate data the same way.
By Billy
November 14, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this
Sorry, chuck, but many of us disagreed with nearly every single one of Bush’s policies. Fir starters, I believe the Constitution to be more than just a sheet of paper. The economy was good only on the surface. Wages were stagnant while inflation rose, especially where health care and college were concerned. Makes for easy sleeping when you’re in the middle class and hoping to give your kids the opportunity to better themselves. Graduation rates? Whatever, man. History will show this presidency to have been every bit as disastrous as we believe it to have been.
The war in Iraq has kept us safe? Hardly. It has destroyed us. Q: What’s worse than a tax-and-spend Democrat? A: A borrow-and-spend Republican. If we’re going to spend a trillion dollars we don’t have, I’d rather spend it on things like schools and bridges, education and job training, and health care for poor children than on a war of choice against a country that posed us no threat. Bin Laden said he couldn’t have expected the hit on the towers to have been as successful as it was. Well, Bush & Co.’s reaction was everything he was hoping for. It has all but bankrupted the country. Congratulations on your nation-building.
By Bruno
November 14, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this
So Mara, during the first 6 years of the Bush Presidency when unemployment was super low, Interest rates were at historic lows, the stock market was at historic highs, graduation rates were up, SAT scores were up, I’m just wondering…which POLICIES were so bad that ya’ll had to lambast him AT EVERY TURN, MOCKING EVERYTHING HE SAID, USING VILE HATEFUL SPEECH, CALLING HIM AN IDIOT, AND MUCH WORSE? WHICH POLICIES?
chuck, if you recall, I showed a few weeks ago that both the unemployment rates AND inflation rates under Clinton and Bush were basically identical through 2007, but couldn’t get even ONE liberal poster here to admit as much. In addition, comparison charts of the tax burden for the middle and lower classes show that under Bush we all paid less than under Clinton. I guess perception is always stronger thatn reality.
ONE POLICY: The war in Iraq, which by the way has kept us safe since 911, which has displaced a despot who IF HE HAD THE MEANS, would have found a way to attack us or support those who would, which BTW is within a couple of months of being a complete success, creating a democracy and a FRIEND in the middle east that we otherwise would not have had. No that couldn’t be it.
Though no one likes war, I personally believe that the goals of the Iraq War are noble. How quickly the liberals have forgotten the fact that Saddam (the OTHER Hussein) thumbed his nose for years at the UN inspectors sent there to inspect the nuclear facilities. The UN passed resolution after resolution against Iraq, but no real action was taken. I guess Kofi and his relatives were too busy counting the money they made from reselling the UN “oil vouchers” that they were stealing.
Politics makes strange bedfellows, so it looks like were going to have to team up for the next four years, buddy. The balance of power has shifted too far to the left again here now that Billy Boy is a stay-at-home mom now. Oops, I mean dad.
By Frustrated
November 14, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this
Didn’t Hitler have a civilian force?
By HearHear
November 14, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this
I think they will be branded by historians as two of the worst to ever serve as Pres and VPres
Hear, Hear, ain’t that the truth.
By Gale
November 14, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this
No woman has ever supported me, though I’ve supported several over the years. Biased much, Bruno? Geez, his wife may make twice as much or maybe she just loves her work. Why shouldn’t she work and he be a stay at home dad? You really think it is better for him to work and leave the kiddies in day care? Or maybe she should stay at home while he works because SHE is the woman and that is her place? Don’t take that to mean I am agreeing with everything you are saying, Billy because I categorically do not. I tend to agree with Bruno, although we have been a bit off vibe this week.
By Billy
November 14, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this
“Didn’t Hitler have a civilian force?”
Yes. A dog, too. I better keep an eye on my neighbors. They have three of them.
By Mara
November 14, 2008 3:06 PM | Link to this
chuck - unemployment was super low, Interest rates were at historic lows, the stock market was at historic highs, graduation rates were up, SAT scores were up, I’m just wondering…which POLICIES were so bad that ya’ll had to lambast him…
Short list? Okay…
Cronyism
politicizing the Justice Department
politicizing the FDA
“Clear Skies”
the “Healthy Forests Initiative”
elimination of scientific reviews vis a vis Endangered Species Act
the devaluation of scientific data government-wide
Signing statements
Katrina
“We know where the WMD’s are”
NSA wiretaps
Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Military Service sexual abuse
no-bid contracts
Blackwater mercenaries
suspension of Habeus Corpus
embracing torture
extraordinary rendition
paying journalists to write propaganda peices for publication
VNR’s
UDSA deregulation of cloned food, banning testing for Mad Cow by private feedlots, lax testing of imported foodstuffs.
Dubai Ports
okay, I said “short list” and that’s what this is. I could go on, but I won’t. For many of us, the damage he’s done faaaaar outweighs any of his short-term successes.
By Billy
November 14, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this
I know, Gale. It’s nice how he doesn’t consider that MAYBE my wife is older than I am and, as such, automatically makes more. And MAYBE with the economy in its current state any job I could get would mean daycare for two kids. And though I COULD have filed for unemployment, I chose not to. The small business where I previously worked failed. Through no fault of Obama’s might I add…
;-p
By k
November 14, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this
Yes, just good honest policy discussion here, no personal attacks judging the choices of others one does not even know! Yep. (Sing it, Mick!) “He can’t be man ‘cause he doesn’t support, his wife & kids like me….. I can’t GET NO!…. no no no…” Oh wait….. snark
By Bruno
November 14, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this
Biased much, Bruno?
Of COURSE I am , Gale, but at least admit it, differently from some of the “left-leaning” posters here. I’m old-school all the way.
I tend to agree with Bruno, although we have been a bit off vibe this week.
I promise I’ll be sweeter next week. Haven’t seen the GF all week, and you know what THAT means.
I know, Gale. It’s nice how he doesn’t consider that MAYBE my wife is older than I am and, as such, automatically makes more. And MAYBE with the economy in its current state any job I could get would mean daycare for two kids. And though I COULD have filed for unemployment, I chose not to. The small business where I previously worked failed. Through no fault of Obama’s might I add…
;-p
Just ribbing you, Billy. Welcome back to the Big Tent.
By Mara
November 14, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this
Billy, pay no attention to Bruno. Lots of people can admire your decision to put your family’s well-being before your masculine ego. Sorry I’ve been busy posting to others and haven’t had time to chat with you.
It’s almost quitting time so let me just say that it’s been nice to hear from you. Stop in every once in a while, if you can. <<hug>>
y’all have a great weekend.
By chuck
November 14, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this
that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve
This is absolutely not a statement that should lead you to believe that this will be like the boy scouts or the peace corp.
This will be an ARMED FORCE (KEY WORD HERE IS FORCE). This is really scary stuff, and the first time I have heard of it. This sounds a little Orwellian to me.
BTW, Billy, I’m sure you wear that apron well. Don’t let these bloggers assume that you are just a little girly man because you stay home with the kids. I admire that.
You’re a little girly man whether or not you stay home with the kids.
By Bruno
November 14, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this
Have you been peeking in my windows again, k?
By chuck
November 14, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this
Ya’ll have a nice weekend now, ya hear?
BTW, Barack HUSSEIN HAMAS Obama is still Senator Obama NOT PRESIDENT-ELECT Obama. He doesn’t actually become President Elect until AFTER the Electoral College meets.
I’m With you when I can be Brudog.
By k
November 14, 2008 3:44 PM | Link to this
Actually Chuck, I’ve been feeling kind of scared and unprotected, what with virtually all our military and most of our National Guard busy thousands of miles away, and hardly anyone left here protecting the homeland. It’s not like the government can afford to hire the necessary people to adequately safeguard our ports and borders, what with the markup we’re giving to Blackwater to protect the folks IN IRAQ, and Parsons to build stuff IN IRAQ, and all this “cut taxes” business while local jurisdictions are struggling for revenue to hire police.
If the days following Katrina taught me anything, it’s that NO ONE is protecting average, unarmed citizens, least of all the government I was taught to trust for my own defense. Since having a gun makes me nervous (and more prone to act on repressed feelings) I’d feel much better knowing I had some form of protection around. Hey, would you like to post your phone number so I can call YOU when the next disaster strikes? I know you’re rooting for that, so how ‘bout it? I’m practically a widow, after all…
By Gale
November 14, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this
See y’all on Monday. I am allergic to testosterone and I must leave now. You boys have a god time.
By Gale
November 14, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this
oops. I meant, have a good time, as in play nice.
By Frustrated
November 14, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this
Yes. A dog, too. I better keep an eye on my neighbors. They have three of them.
Wow…so maybe I am the only one that seems concerned at the whole thought… ok…I can deal with that.
But I do think it is funny how you think Hitler having a civilian force in which he led a dictatorship and him having a dog for a pet has cause for the same comparison. Are you serious?
By Frustrated
November 14, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this
*It’s nice how he doesn’t consider that MAYBE my wife is older than I am and, as such, automatically makes more.”
SO I can quit and go back to work in 30 years and automatically make more because I will be older? Why didn’t anyone tell me?
By Bruno
November 14, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this
But I do think it is funny how you think Hitler having a civilian force in which he led a dictatorship and him having a dog for a pet has cause for the same comparison. Are you serious?
Welcome to Lib Logic according to Billy, Frustrated.
BTW, hope you caught my post last night re: tickets for the upcoming Grapes reunion show the day after Thanksgiving at the Variety Playhouse. If your hubby likes hippie music, however, he should make an effort to come see Deep Blue Sun, a much better band. They really tore it up at this years “Family Reunion”. An “electrifying” performance, if you know what I mean. Wink, wink.
By Billy
November 14, 2008 4:26 PM | Link to this
Yes, Frustrated. You can. Go ahead.
No. The point was that times are tough and given that she was already in her career when I was a college sophomore, she now has more experience, ergo higher pay, so it made more financial sense.
By Heather
November 14, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this
I agree with the rebuttel. Isn’t it interesting that the liberal left has attacked Bush at every opportunity, but suddenly a Democrat is in the Whitehouse and they all demand bipartisanship. Were has their call for bipartisanship been for the last eight years?
Of course, one would think that bipartisanship means compromise, give and take. But it seems to a liberal bipartisan means “everyone agrees with and works on the liberal agenda”. I hardly call that compromise!
It also seems that reaching across the isle usually means a republican who works with a democrat on a Bill that the democrats want.
I have never recalled any example of a democrat reaching across the isle to work on a Bill that conservatives wanted!
By Bruno
November 14, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this
Actually Chuck
Just so I get the rules of engagement straight, help me out here:
(1) Although it is a public forum, you get to choose who responds to your posts
(2) You are allowed to snipe at my posts from the sidelines without any return comments from me
(3) When the mood strikes you, you are allowed to ask me direct questions which you will ask repeatedly if I try to ignore you, but I’m never allowed to directly address you in return
Just checkin’
I’m practically a widow, after all…
If my imagination is correct, you are far too beautiful to be single. I don’t mean just average beautiful, but achingly beautiful, with dreamy eyes and porcelain skin. And extremely intelligent and creative to boot.
By k
November 14, 2008 4:33 PM | Link to this
Frustrated, just curious. Have you done any research on “civilian forces” in general? I mean, comparing one modern suggestion to one dictatorship 70 years ago is a thin basis for conclusions. What other governments throughout history have had something that could be perceived as a “civilian force,” and under what circumstances were they formed, (Ongoing war with/attacks by the neighbors, for example? Plague? Famine?) and by whom, and what problems did they address or cause, and what were the long-term and short-term results, and how do they relate to what Obama suggests — as opposed to what others are suggesting he suggested? Before I could agree to go off the deep end on the notion of impending Gestapo in my suburban neighborhood, I’d need more to go on. If there were something to be alarmed about — beyond the reduction in civil rights and unprecedented increases in executive power of the last several years — I’d certainly be willing to protest appropriately.
By k
November 14, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this
Bru-dude, I’m uber sorry for offending you this week. It was not my intention, but apparently I was unclear when commenting on southern racism that I was NOT talking about non-southerners who choose to make a home here, who confess to loving people of every color. Once again: not calling all McCain voters racists. (Many tell me the only color they care about is the green in their own wallets!) Only noting that southern racists do exist and were solidly McCain. Either way, we’re ALL in the SAME BOAT right now: Adrift on our economy and a sea of uncertainty, waiting to see if the next captain will bring this boat around to better times. Nothing you can do at the moment, so how bout chill, burn one, groove on your tunes, and let it go. (And please don’t blow smoke up my a— and call it a cool breeze, mm-kay?) ‘Nite, all!
By Frustrated
November 14, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this
Bruno: I did see your thread, I need to go onto their website and see about tickets. Did you get my suggestion for Will Hoge? You need to check them out if you haven’t heard of them. I will look up the other band…Are they a tribute band too?
Billy: I understand what you are saying, I have no problem with you being at home…in fact, my household recently reviewed the possibility…my husband has his associates, I have a bachelor’s…and daycare costs are ridiculous. Sorry, I was just being facetious (sp???)
K- No, I haven’t done a lot of research on civilian forces. I just asked when I heard someone talking about it earlier because when I hear civilian force, I think Hitler. I agree with your logic, I didn’t mean to imply that Obama has plans like Hitler….although when my first thought is Hitler, it does have cause for alarm…so I will google the whole civilian force thing….and get back with you
By JokesOn
November 14, 2008 5:24 PM | Link to this
Mr. Dog,
Well, you and JokesOn will get along well, then. He was named the most liberal Senator based upon his voting record by the National Journal who does an annual rating of Senators. According to the Congressional Quarterly he has voted strictly along party lines more than 97% of the time. If all of that somehow equates to “centrist”, “moderate” or “center-right” to you, then apparently we don’t evaluate data the same way.
And if you read the quote I posted from the National Journal, you would know that they themselves said it meant nothing (missed 1/3 of votes) and they were surprised that it was being used as propaganda fact.
chuck, if you recall, I showed a few weeks ago that both the unemployment rates AND inflation rates under Clinton and Bush were basically identical through 2007, but couldn’t get even ONE liberal poster here to admit as much. In addition, comparison charts of the tax burden for the middle and lower classes show that under Bush we all paid less than under Clinton. I guess perception is always stronger thatn reality.
JC! Those were the numbers that had the same average, but sloped upward during clinton and downwards during Bush, no? For liking math, you do not understand the importance of taking a limit.
Fox news several times. Are you sure that he’s open to honest scrutiny??
“Fox News”….”Honest Scrutiny”….in the same sentence!!!Sides….Hurting….
This will be an ARMED FORCE (KEY WORD HERE IS FORCE). This is really scary stuff, and the first time I have heard of it. This sounds a little Orwellian to me.
First time he read anything on it is a blog and he is scared? Meh….the only point is to draw melodramatic effect.
If my imagination is correct, you are far too beautiful to be single. I don’t mean just average beautiful, but achingly beautiful, with dreamy eyes and porcelain skin. And extremely intelligent and creative to boot.
Puked in my mouth a little…
By Bruno
November 14, 2008 5:29 PM | Link to this
Bru-dude, I’m uber sorry for offending you this week. It was not my intention, but apparently I was unclear when commenting on southern racism that I was NOT talking about non-southerners who choose to make a home here, who confess to loving people of every color.
I understand, k, and ask that you forgive me if I offended you in any way in return. Obviously, I’m realistic enough to know that race does continue to play a significant part in the decisions of many people of both Northern and Southern heritage. If it makes you feel any better, everyone in my family, mother, stepfather, all 4 sisters and their respective partners ALL voted for Obama. I was the lone McCain voter.
BTW, if I ever win the lottery or perhaps the World Series of Poker, you’re on my list of beneficiaries.
Peace.
By Billy
November 14, 2008 5:48 PM | Link to this
Amusing to me that you find the “civilian force” idea so disturbing at the same time Bush is trying to make it legal for law enforcement agencies to spy on American citizens who aren’t even under s`us
By Billy
November 14, 2008 5:48 PM | Link to this
Amusing to me that you find the “civilian force” idea so disturbing at the same time Bush is trying to make it legal for law enforcement agencies to spy on American citizens who aren’t even under s`us
By Billy
November 14, 2008 11:17 PM | Link to this
Wow. My son hit the keyboard and effed up my post. What I was trying to say was:
Amusing to me that you find the “civilian force” idea so disturbing at the same time Bush is trying to make it legal for law enforcement agencies to spy on American citizens who aren’t even under suspicion of illegal behavior.
By sleestak
November 16, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this
I’m going to Give president Obama the same level of respect that president bush has received the last 8 years. That being, Blame everything under the sun on him.
By The Other Jack
November 16, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
Billy
Bush is trying to make it legal for law enforcement agencies to spy on American citizens who aren’t even under suspicion of illegal behavior.
Ooohh. Scary. That was really bad stuff: that wire taps stuff. Now we only have a global economic disaster The democratic Congress that has destroyed our economy is now copmpletely in charge and you are worried that someone might want to listen to your phone calls. LOL!!!
paranoia strikes deep. into your heart it will creep. it happens when you’re always afraid. step out of line and the man comes to take you away. stop, hey, what’s that sound? everybody look what’s going down. its time we stop, hey, what’s that sound? everybody look what’s going down.
Silly little liberal.
By JokesOn
November 16, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this
Ooohh. Scary. That was really bad stuff: that wire taps stuff. Now we only have a global economic disaster The democratic Congress that has destroyed our economy is now copmpletely in charge and you are worried that someone might want to listen to your phone calls. LOL!!!
Yup. That is it. That is the rhetoric we have been hearing from you guys and Bush for the last 8 years. Be afraid of everything and give up your rights and vote us in for another 8.
The american people said no thanks. We choose not to react, but to act.
Silly little repug.
By One Voice
November 16, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this
It doesn’t matter if conservatives are willing to give President Obama a “fair shake”. They have little power and less influence. (And in case anyone forgot, Republicans were still winning elections in 2004, which means that most of the Senate seats up for grabs in 2010 will be Republican ones. Democrats will only have to pick up one or two of them and they’ll have achieved cloture on every vote they institute. Republicans will then literally have no power.)
It’s not the political power of conservatives I worry about. It’s that many of the masses have been duped into thinking Obama is a Muslim, a terrorist, and a communist. There have been more threats against him than any other president elect. A big part of the reason for this is McCain’s dishonorable campaign. Sure, he gave a gracious concession speech (is there any other kind to give?), but after a dirty smear campaign does that win him back his honor? Not in my book. A result of McCain’s dishonorable tactics is that millions of Republicans now believe and will continue to spread outright lies about our president, factual inaccuracies that are not dependent on interpretation. Luckily, those are the people who will have little voice in government for the next 4 years. And they’ll lose again in 2012 if they continue to base their ideology and opposition on lies rather than looking in the mirror and reflecting on why the majority of Americans rejected their influence.
President Bush earned the ill will against him through incompetency, dishonesty, corruption, and a host a terrible decisions that damaged the nation and its people. Obama will be better in every capacity. Republicans can either reform and get on the train, or they can be steamrolled by the inevitable forces of progress.
By Ssgtsouth
November 16, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this
We conservatives will give him more of a chance that the demlibs have given President Bush. As of right now the demlibs are still attacking both Bush and Palin. I may be wrong but just how do the demlibs hope to have support of conservatives,Republicans, or independents if the only thing out of there mouths is hatred…..I will give him my support cause he sure has promised me a lot……………..
By Bruno
November 16, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this
Amusing to me that you find the “civilian force” idea so disturbing at the same time Bush is trying to make it legal for law enforcement agencies to spy on American citizens who aren’t even under suspicion of illegal behavior.
No double standard here, Billy. I have opposed the “Patriot Act” from its inception, and have criticized Bush when I felt it was appropriate. I think that the liberal “protests” against specific Bush policies the past eight would have been more credible if y’all hadn’t engaged in ridiculous personal attacks against him before he even took office. There’s a lot of value in “picking your battles”, which hopefully we conservatives will do for the next four years rather than engaging in the type of general smear campaigns that Bush had to endure.
And if you read the quote I posted from the National Journal, you would know that they themselves said it meant nothing (missed 1/3 of votes) and they were surprised that it was being used as propaganda fact
Mr. JokesOn: If it allows you to sleep better at night, I did, in fact, read the explanation on the National Journal site prior to your mentioning it. The annual “rating” they do was never intended to be seen as “cold, hard scientific fact” since it is based on subjective criteria, so I never took it that way. Having said that, however, the rating is valid in a general way in categorizing the voting record of the various Congressmen/women. Though Obama was MIA so much that the statistical validity of the analysis was somewhat strained, it is still a good general indicator of the way that he voted which, again, was far-left all the way. As far as “propaganda”, hopefully you can separate political “banter” from hard-core academic analysis. No one is writing a PhD thesis here, which I always keep in mind while blogging. You seem to hold my posts to a higher standard than those coming from the lefties.
JC! Those were the numbers that had the same average, but sloped upward during clinton and downwards during Bush, no? For liking math, you do not understand the importance of taking a limit.
I’m not going to go to the trouble to repost the unemployment figures under Bush and Clinton, but the respective graphs had the same general characteristic: both started off with high unemployment rates which gradually improved throughout their terms. Obviously, the 2008 figures aren’t going to be good, but once again, you’re missing my greater point that the similarity of the unemployment/inflation numbers under both of the Presidents doesn’t justify all the bellyaching that I’ve been hearing for 8+ years.
Fox News”….”Honest Scrutiny”….in the same sentence!!!Sides….Hurting….
Personally, I find the political bias on Fox to be no greater than the political bias on CNN, MSNBC, etc, just in a different direction.
Because we can’t see facial expressions or hear tones of voices through the blog, you have had difficulty lately knowing when I was being tongue-in-cheek or just “bantering”. It was a contnetious election, so I think that I’m allowed to be one-sided without facing harsh criticism. I’ve never seen you criticize any liberal posters for engaging in the same behavior.
By Bruno
November 16, 2008 1:36 PM | Link to this
*Short list? Okay…
Cronyism
politicizing the Justice Department
politicizing the FDA
“Clear Skies*”
Mara—I didn’t have time to address your list of complaints against Bush policies, but wanted to compliment you for your ability to specifically state what you didn’t agree with on such short notice. If I have time next week, I will do my best to give rebuttals where appropriate.
I was actually more curious to know how you and your hubby handle political discussions. You are such a formidable opponent, I can’t see him winning many arguments in case y’all disagree. Even then, even when we fellows “win”, we actually “lose” because we have to spend a week sleeping on the couch. I’ve learned that lesson the hard way many times. Of course, being the stubborn person that I am, I still continue to voice my opinions. If you’re hubby is half as smart as I think he is (he won you over, by God), my guess is that he shies away from political disagreements. Ditto for USinUK’s hubby.
By Bruno
November 16, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
While Henry Waxman over in the House was investigating, sending out subpoena’s, holding hearings, and attempting to find out the facts of many of the Executive over-reaches
I must have missed it, but exactly was the outcome of those important hearings? A big nada, to my recollection.
By Bruno
November 16, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this
Bruno: I did see your thread, I need to go onto their website and see about tickets. Did you get my suggestion for Will Hoge? You need to check them out if you haven’t heard of them. I will look up the other band…Are they a tribute band too?
Frustrated, I misspoke a little when talking up the Grapes reunion. They started off as a Grateful Dead cover band, but eventually wrote their own material which comprises more than 90% of their shows. Deep Blue Sun is a completely original band, though they do like to do a rippin’ cover of the Beatles song “I Want You (She’s So Heavy)”. Without trying to commit sacrilege, their version may actually be a little better than the Beatle’s version since they like to turn it into an extended jam which is easy to “get lost” in. I found out yesterday that Deep Blue Sun will actually be on the same bill as the Grapes in two weeks, so it will definitely be a smokin’ show (pun intended). To whet your husband’s appetite, here’s a link to a YouTube video of one of DBS’s performances:
www. youtube.com/watch?v=hShJw4e133c (delete space)
You can find DBS’s website by googling in their name. I will check into the band you mentioned as well.
If you are going to hang out on W2W for a while, I would like to respectfully suggest that you pick a more endearing (feminine) name for yourself. It is likely wise to not use your “real” name, but I’m sure you can come up with something good.
Well, off to Stone Mt. for the day.
By swolf
November 16, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this
No…the Republicans won’t give Obama a fair shake. It goes against the very nature.
By JokesOn
November 16, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this
Though Obama was MIA so much that the statistical validity of the analysis was somewhat strained, it is still a good general indicator of the way that he voted which, again, was far-left all the way. As far as “propaganda”, hopefully you can separate political “banter” from hard-core academic analysis.
One year of incomplete data equals “hard-core academic analysis?” Not nearly.
What happens if you average his voting record over his entire time there? You no longer have the absolute qualifier “most” liberal. The word most has a meaning that you are ignoring. The best you can say is “judging for a single year in which he missed a gross number of votes, obama rated most liberal.”
Saying Obama id “The most liberal senator” is simply incorrect. It is a soundbite that a propaganda machine is saying to scaaaaare you. And it worked ;/
I’m not going to go to the trouble to re-post the unemployment figures under Bush and Clinton, but the respective graphs had the same general characteristic: both started off with high unemployment rates which gradually improved throughout their terms. Obviously, the 2008 figures aren’t going to be good, but once again, you’re missing my greater point that the similarity of the unemployment/inflation numbers under both of the Presidents doesn’t justify all the bellyaching that I’ve been hearing for 8+ years.
Well, I remember and the slopes were in opposite directions and you took the averages to use as an argument of their terms being equal. Very bad math. We pointed it out. You barely concurred. You return to using it. Bummer.
By JIM
November 17, 2008 8:08 AM | Link to this
Surely now all the demos and obamamaniacs expect is that their guy be given the same level of respect that they gave Bush. What could be more fair then that.
My new bumper sticker—-I will respect him as much as you respected
President Bush
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 8:12 AM | Link to this
Joke
We get that you don’t agree that Obama has the most liberal voting record.
Why don’t you prove your point and offer another Senator who is considered having a more liberal voting record than Obama.
Too much to ask?
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 8:14 AM | Link to this
JIM
That makes all the sense in the world. But look to the media to dictate what we should do. It will become very “hip” to now support our government, no matter what they do. .
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 8:17 AM | Link to this
One voice
It doesn’t matter if conservatives are willing to give President Obama a “fair shake”. They have little power and less influence.
Pleease remember that when you are blaming all our problems on Republicans.
Here’s an idea. This time, while brandishing all that power, how about take on some responsibility.
By Gale
November 17, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this
I think the conservatives should do the same as they did for the president before their guy. Blame everything on the previous president. Except now, that would be Bush. :->
By Frustrated
November 17, 2008 8:32 AM | Link to this
If you are going to hang out on W2W for a while, I would like to respectfully suggest that you pick a more endearing (feminine) name for yourself. It is likely wise to not use your “real” name, but I’m sure you can come up with something good.
I picked the name out of frustration the first time I posted…hehe… I will have to think about this…..But yes, maybe it is time I change…
*I found out yesterday that Deep Blue Sun will actually be on the same bill as the Grapes in two weeks, so it will definitely be a smokin’ show (pun intended). *
Still at the Variety??????
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 8:33 AM | Link to this
Good Monday all!! I hope everyone had a nice weekend …
I’m not going to go to the trouble to re-post the unemployment figures under Bush and Clinton, but the respective graphs had the same general characteristic: both started off with high unemployment rates which gradually improved throughout their terms. Obviously, the 2008 figures aren’t going to be good, but once again, you’re missing my greater point that the similarity of the unemployment/inflation numbers under both of the Presidents doesn’t justify all the bellyaching that I’ve been hearing for 8+ years.
first of all, averages don’t tell the story. The average unemployment rates between the 2 administrations may have been the same, but the stories are entirely different - just as if you have 2 kids in a class with 3 exams. If one makes a 50 followed by 2 90s for an average of 76 and the other child mades 76 on all 3 exams, the averages are the same, but those are entirely different stories.
When Clinton took office in January 1993, unemployment stood at 7.3% - for the next 8 years, unemployment declined steadily with no huge increases (no increase was longer than 2 months before falling again, no increase was greater than 40 basis points). When Bush took office in January 2001, unemployment was at 4.2% and rose to 6.3% in June 2003. It then proceded to fall to 4.4% in October 2006 when it started to rise again (currently, the unemployment rate is 6.5%).
Unemployment under Bush never got down to the level it was when he took office and has, in fact, spent more calendar months increasing than decreasing (55 months increasing vs 41 months decreasing). An entirely different story than that of the Clinton administration (21 months of increases vs. 75 months decreasing), you cannot deny.
So Mara, during the first 6 years of the Bush Presidency when unemployment was super low, Interest rates were at historic lows, the stock market was at historic highs, graduation rates were up, SAT scores were up, I’m just wondering
well, I just addressed the “super low unemployment” fallacy …
interest rates: first of all, the president has nothing to do with interest rates - those are set by the Fed, which is an independent body. secondly, low interest rates - to paraphrase Inigo Montoya, I don’t think that indicator means what you think it means. low interest rates are a sign of a weak economy, not a strong one, so you may want to rethink that as a selling point (if you want to talk about the high fed rates during the 1970s, I will, but it will involve the Phillips Curve and the 2006 Nobel prize for economics, so I don’t think you want to go there).
stock market: given what we now know about the house of cards that has been our financial markets for the last few years, do you really want to tout that as a selling point for the Bush administration??? I think not.
graduation and SAT scores: you may want to rethink that, as well “After adjusting for multiple sources of bias and differences in sample construction, we establish that (1) the U.S. high school graduation rate peaked at around 80 percent in the late 1960s and then declined by 4-5 percentage points; (2) the actual high school graduation rate is substantially lower than the 88 percent official estimate; (3) about 65 percent of blacks and Hispanics leave school with a high school diploma and minority graduation rates are still substantially below the rates for non-Hispanic whites. Contrary to claims based on the official statistics, we find no evidence of convergence in minority-majority graduation rates over the past 35 years. (4) Exclusion of incarcerated populations from the official statistics greatly biases the reported high school graduation rate for blacks.
http:// www. voxeu. org/ index.php?q=node/930 (copy/paste/delete spaces)
plus, you forgot a couple … teen pregnancy rates and STDs were also up.
… but other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play … ???
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 8:35 AM | Link to this
Gale -
I think the conservatives should do the same as they did for the president before their guy. Blame everything on the previous president. Except now, that would be Bush. :->
well done, ma’am!
By HeeHaw
November 17, 2008 8:40 AM | Link to this
*This time, while brandishing all that power, how about take on some responsibility. *
you mean like the Republicans have for the current state of affairs?
I heard it was all Bill Clinton’s fault that the markets are down and the auto BigThree are going out of business. And the military is too small for several fronts world-wide. etc etc etc.
snorting..
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this
The board’s response to the Lieberman issue say that liberals will not tolerate opposing views. If you dare to disagree, you should lose your career, your life.
oh, and TOJ - if this was 2004 and you had … say … John Warner out actively campaigning for John Kerry (and calling Bush’s patriotism into question), do you honestly think Bill Frist would have let him keep his armed services chairmanship??? now, be honest …
as for your faux-concern about someone’s CAREER, may I suggest you look into the K Street Project and how Tom Delay et al decided to destroy the careers of Democrats by refusing to work with any lobbying firms that hired them?? (http://www. washingtonpost. com/ wp-dyn/ content/article/2006/01/03/AR2006010301536.html)
if you think stifling dissention in the party ranks is bad, then you should definitely be opposed to stifling political association in the free-market workforce…
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this
USinUK
interest rates: first of all, the president has nothing to do with interest rates
But you just had a long diatribe about how unemployment rates were this or that when we both know that the president has little to do with unemployment.
You pick and choose numbers to match your indoctrination.
From now on, why don’t you save a lot of time and just give this answer:
The Democrats did it: It is good. The Republicans did it: it is bad.
If democrats are in charge when something goes wrong, it is not actually wrong unless it can be traced back to a Republican.
As far as blaming things on Clinton. You might want to point out when anyone actually did that in the last four years.
By lovelyliz
November 17, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this
Will Republicans give President Obama a fair shake?
Well considering how they treated candidate Obama, I doubt that the GOP’s treatment of President Obama won’t be any better. This is politics afterall and political leopards don’t change their spots.
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 9:06 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
But you just had a long diatribe about how unemployment rates were this or that when we both know that the president has little to do with unemployment. You pick and choose numbers to match your indoctrination.
I didn’t make this assertion - Bruno and chuck did. I was correcting chuck’s fallacy and illustrating to Bruno why an 8-year average doesn’t tell the story. I have no problem whatsoever with not attributing unemployment to ANY presidential administration (although, funny how you never hear Republicans complain about that when they talk about the Carter administration … no matter)
As far as blaming things on Clinton. You might want to point out when anyone actually did that in the last four years.
you mean like Rush Limbaugh blaming Clinton for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act??? that kind of blame???
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this
HeeHaw
you mean like the Republicans have for the current state of affairs?
The Republicans have been out of power in the Congress for two years. Anything happens before 2006, they are responsible for.
By Mara
November 17, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this
Bruno - I was actually more curious to know how you and your hubby handle political discussions…I can’t see him winning many arguments in case y’all disagree.
We do sometimes have a difference of opinion, but I don’t think either of us look at these discussions as win-lose “arguments”. Since I’m a news junkie and he’d rather watch Speed TV than C-Span, it’s usually him asking “Why’n the heck is the government doing (insert appropriate idiocy)?” to which I explain as best I can. I really, really try to present both sides of the issue before telling him what I think. THEN the discussion begins on why some people support or oppose said idiocy. Most of the time we agree, sometimes we don’t, and that’s okay.
I don’t want him to agree with me on everything (how boring!) and he doesn’t…but for us is not a win-lose battle either.
Gale - I second USinUKs “well done”.
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this
USinUk
if this was 2004 and you had … say … John Warner out actively campaigning for John Kerry (and calling Bush’s patriotism into question), do you honestly think Bill Frist would have let him keep his armed services chairmanship??? now, be honest …
if … then … Didn’t happen. So the comparison is moot. Pelosi/Reid/Obama. Better march the goose step or pack your bags.
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this
USinUK
although, funny how you never hear Republicans complain about that when they talk about the Carter administration … no matter
Carter, like all the Democratic presidents that served between the years of 1954 until 1994 had a Democratically controlled House and Senate. I blame the democrats in Washington for the problems that a weak military, a state department that spent it’s time on it’s knees in front of the rest of the world and a government that believed that taxes is the way to boost an economy (this is sounding very familiar). I like Carter, the man, I just don’t like that liberal sewer (Washington) that drove our country into the ground.
you mean like Rush Limbaugh blaming Clinton for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act???
Rush Limbaugh? Is he here? Rush, good to have you on board.
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
Anything happens before 2006, they are responsible for.
wow. do you actually own a calendar? or is the space/time continuum just beyond your comprehension? the Dems were elected majority in NOV 2006 and didn’t take office until JAN 2007.
as for the current financial pickle in which the country finds itself, may I refer you to the following timeline of the market blowup:
http:// edition. cnn.com/ 2008/BUSINESS/ 09/30/us.bailout.timeline/index.html (copy/paste/delete spaces)
as you will most likely note, then conveniently ignore, the first report of losses due to sub-prime was in Feb. 2007 (just a few weeks after the Dems took office). Immediately following this were Bear-Stearns hedge funds reporting losses, BNP Paribas freezing up and the Northern Rock bank run. You may want to blame the current state of affairs on the Dems taking office, but the fact of the matter is that this snowball was a long time in the making.
One last thing … since you do so love to blame the cost of oil on the Dems, does that mean that they are to be credited now that oil is less than half what it was a couple of months ago??? I assume not, but just thought I’d ask.
if … then … Didn’t happen.
yeah. because Tom DeLay and Bill Frist were such kind, caring, compassionate guys, they would have had no problem if a Republican had campaigned for a Dem. the GOP was known for its tolerance, after all (/choking on my own snark)
K. STREET. PROJECT.
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
Rush Limbaugh? Is he here? Rush, good to have you on board.
As far as blaming things on Clinton. You might want to point out when anyone actually did that in the last four years. … if you meant “on the board”, then you should have said “on the board.” if you want to scroll through 4 years of posts, have a ball. I have a life.
I blame the democrats in Washington for the problems that a weak military a weak military??? in the 1950, military spending was between 10-15% of GDP, then, as the country grew during the 1960s, that % dropped to just under 10% throughout the Viet Nam War, after which it dropped by about half. Again, though, % of GDP is misleading because the US GDP grew so rapidly during those years.
a state department that spent it’s time on it’s knees in front of the rest of the world you mean turning a blind eye while the CIA set up puppet dictatorships and supported despots around the globe to “fight communism” ???
a government that believed that taxes is the way to boost an economy
it’s called not asking your great-grandchildren to pay for what you’re spending today - something the GOP seems to have forgotten all about.
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this
USinUK
So … even though the democrats have had leadership in both houses for two years, they hold absolutely no responsibility for the mess we are in. Got it.
Clinton was not responsible for the high inflation numbers but is completely responsible for the low unemployment numbers. Got it.
And you wonder why I write: The Democrats did it: It is good. The Republicans did it: it is bad. If democrats are in charge when something goes wrong, it is not actually wrong unless it can be traced back to a Republican.
By Gale
November 17, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this
Mara, your situation sounds a lot like my partner and I, except she is the details person. I’m that aquarian who usually does not have all the facts. It is never a good idea to argue with someone who has done the research.
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
USinUK
if you meant “on the board”, then you should have said “on the board.” if you want to scroll through 4 years of posts, have a ball. I have a life.
And your life is only spent proving the good things about liberals. got it.
I blame the democrats in Washington for the problems that a weak military a weak military??? in the 1950, military spending was between 10-15% of GDP, then, as the country grew during the 1960s, that % dropped to just under 10% throughout the Viet Nam War, after which it dropped by about half. Again, though, % of GDP is misleading because the US GDP grew so rapidly during those years.
A weak military means that the people in charge of the military refuse to use it. That’s why little Iran cost Carter the election.
a state department that spent it’s time on it’s knees in front of the rest of the world you mean turning a blind eye while the CIA set up puppet dictatorships and supported despots around the globe to “fight communism” ???
They tried, but a democratically controlled Congress was just too set at fighting anything that was not rabidly liberal and weak. We are still paying for it and Obama’s biggest problem will be because we didn’t stand up to Iran, giving them incredible credibility to the rest of the Islamic world.
it’s called not asking your great-grandchildren to pay for what you’re spending today - something the GOP seems to have forgotten all about.
LOL!! The GOP spent 75 Billion on a war which put almost every dime back into the economy. Then the Democratric Congress just gave the same amount to … to … .
What was it they gave 70 billion to? And Obama is going to give us all a tax break. And his first program will be to give us all a big fat check, taken away from the evil rich Republicans. LOL!!! So much for the grandchildren. LOL!!
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
So … even though the democrats have had leadership in both houses for two years, they hold absolutely no responsibility for the mess we are in. Got it.
honey, they just got the keys to the joint when the bottom fell out. as Bruno and I were saying last week, neither party is entirely to blame (me, I blame Greenspan for the worst of it) - but, you sure as he!! can’t blame the Dems for this mess. sorry, bub, while I know it pains you, the groundwork was laid before they took charge.
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
The GOP spent 75 Billion on a war which put almost every dime back into the economy.
to Iraq’s economy, maybe … the US economy? not so much (did you happen to see the size of the deficit prior to the bailout??? let’s just say, it didn’t look like it just got out of a cold shower)
And your life is only spent proving the good things about liberals. got it.
no, I’d rather go to Bbg and get easily provable facts than scroll through your temper tantrums, chuck’s theology seminars and the endless arguments about abortion and prayer in school. you may have the stomach to reread all that drivel … not me.
We are still paying for it and Obama’s biggest problem will be because we didn’t stand up to Iran, giving them incredible credibility to the rest of the Islamic world.
well, your guy decided to work with them (Reagan) - your team had 12 (TWELVE) years to do something about Iran, but opted not to. And, if there’s anything the last 8 years has shown, the President is Commander in Chief - he’s the Decider - he can pretty much do whatever he wants. and, in the twelve years following the Iranian Revolution and the American hostage crisis, your team did nothing. well, nothing except fund Saddam Hussein - and we see how well that turned out.
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this
USinUK
You are the expert. I’m sure those capitalistic bank owning eeeeevil Republicans were all over loaning money to people who couldn’t afford to pay the money back.
That just sounds like Republicans, doesn’t it? Risking the banks on loaning out money so poor people can have their own homes. I’m sure that groundwork was all the Republican’s fault.
See, every argument you make is one contradiction after another. The Carter Administration taxed the crap out of us so our grandchildren wouldn’t need to pay for our mistakes, but strangely enough our grandchildren will be dealing with Iran because Carter supported Islam over our Ally, getting rid of the Shaw. And those taxes that were supposed to lower the deficit? How did that work out? Our economy went through hell for four years and for what?
The Democrats had two years to steer our economy away from disaster. So what did they do to avoid the crash? Name anything. ANYTHING. And most people who voted for Obama didn’t even know that the Congress was being led by Democrats during the last two years.
This is America. We have a Union Controlled education system that is worst than most third world countries. THAT is the problem. They know Judge Judy and cannot recognize a picture of Nancy Pelosi.
Ignorance won this election. We get the government that we deserve. And you support the government that the media and our lack of education has created. You must be very proud.
By trob
November 17, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
I’m sick of BOTH parties. Has GWB been a great president? No. The worst ever? No, not as long as Jimmy Carter is a former president. Was W the best choice available in the last 2 elections? Absolutely! Did he steal the 2000 election? Give me a break. The supremes are moderate a best ( not right wing thugs) so I don’t thing that he would be their personal choice. And before I get labeled a hate monger by some of the more irrational posters here (Billy), I am a FORMER Republican . I will support Mr. Obama as president until he starts going outside of the constitution to add or subtract from our rights, or to saddle my children with a 50 TRILLION dollar debt for new and unneeded social programs. Do I believe that Mr Obama is a Marxist? Yes, in the same mold as FDR and LBJ. My hope for our republic is that he governs from the middle. If he does not, we are all doomed.
looking for John Gault
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this
USinUK
to Iraq’s economy, maybe … the US economy? not so much (did you happen to see the size of the deficit prior to the bailout??? let’s just say, it didn’t look like it just got out of a cold shower)
I didn’t know that our billion dollar tanks and our half billion dollar fighter jets were built in Iraq. I gues General Dynamics, Boeing and Lockheed have big factories in Iraq. See, I learn soooo much coming here.
So I guess that Germany greatly benefited from the money we spent on WWII. Gee, I thought that money went to our factory workers who built the weapons, not the people we bombed. Japan must have made a fortune on the money we spent on the Atomic Bomb(s). Wasn’t Oak Ridge and Los Alamos located just east of Tokyo?
US factory gets a contract to build an airplane. Another factory gets the contract to build bombs. US workers are paid to build the airplanes and the bombs. American contractors test and deliver the airplanes and bombs. Airplane takes off with an American pilot, drops bomb on Iraq. And you think that Iraq was who benefited from the war contracts. And you consider yourself an expect on finances. Got it.
Sometime when you have nothing to prove, you might want to step back and just look at what you say on most days. Grandchildren not having to pay for our mistakes, Iraq got the money we spent on the war, both huge talking points of the DNC but when looked at closely, both complete nonsense.
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
well, your guy decided to work with them (Reagan) - your team had 12 (TWELVE) years to do something about Iran, but opted not to
actually, I misspoke. your team DID do something about Iran. They ARMED Iran as a part of the Iran-Contra affair. In fact, I believe most of the folks on your side of the aisle still look at the key players like Ollie North as some kind of patriots for their work. well done, you.
so, before you start railing about how the Iranian mote in the Dems’ eye, how about you look at the Shiite-shaped LOG in the GOP’s eye … ??? naaaaaaaahhhhhhhh … I know you never will.
The Democrats had two years to steer our economy away from disaster. So what did they do to avoid the crash? Name anything. ANYTHING. And most people who voted for Obama didn’t even know that the Congress was being led by Democrats during the last two years.
I knew you wouldn’t look at the timeline. god forbid you actually examine the facts - they might actually get in the way of your skewed world view. the financial markets started to unravel right as the Dems took office. “steer our economy away from disaster” - honey, we had already HIT the iceburg - there was no steering away - right now, it’s only bailing - and bailing out.
We get the government that we deserve god knows, we did for the last 8 years. Ignorance won this election. no, but FEAR sure as he!! won 2004 - too bad your guys couldn’t keep peddling it …
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this
US Car Companies?
As long as the UAW runs the plants they will continue to fail. Let them go Chapter 11. That would release the companies from Union Contracts. They can close the factories that are not in free work states, start building 21st century cars, problem solved.
But this government wants to pass a bill that would not give employees a private vote over Union take-over.
So are the democrats more interested in improving our country or governing in favor of special intrests groups like the UAW?
I know.
Silly question.
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
you might want to check out these graphs: http://en. wikipedia.org/ wiki/UnitedStatespublic_debt
see the size of those deficits and how they’ve taken off from 1980 onward???
and I guess you don’t read the news much, do you. A lot of the big-ticket items aren’t being built in the US - for instance, Northrup Grumann was awarded a huge tanker contract, taking the jobs to France, Spain, etc. (http://www. washingtontimes. com/news/2008/jul/17/ a-secure-defense-industry/) … heck, even Navy 1 isn’t built by Sikorsky, anymore.
on top of that, yes, a lot of the money that is spent on Iraq is meant to be spent on rebuilding Iraq - roads, bridges, the schools the Iraq War apologists are always going on about …
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this
USinUK
So nothing could have been done, huh? it was all over in 2006. We have just been riding on Clinton’s immaculate governing until 2006, but even his almost God-like administration couldn’t keep it going through two more years.
I have asked you this before, but you never answered. So how long do we have the democrats in charge before they begin to take responsibility for putting their special interest over the country? How many years (two, so far) before they will be responsible in your eyes. Can you give me a date, a decade, a century?
So why did we elect the democrats in 2006? They claimed to have the answers and now you are telling me that they really didn’t?
It’s like trying to convince a child. You are never wrong and your party is never to blame.
Welcome to the Liberal’s America. Bend over America. They are never at fault and they are never wrong.
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
So are the democrats more interested in improving our country or governing in favor of special intrests groups like the UAW?
fwiw - if I was a betting person (which I am way to Scottish to be), my £££ would be on whatever bailout happens, it will include concessions from both sides, which will probably cripple - not strengthen - the UAW.
By Billy
November 17, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this
OK, “trob”, why exactly am I one of “the more irrational posters on here”? Do you have a specific post by me that seems particularly irrational?
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
So nothing could have been done, huh? it was all over in 2006.
As far as the markets were concerned, yes. that’s exactly what I’m saying. the unwinding began in 2007 - and, because Greenspan fought regulation/transparency of the derivatives market, no one knew how much pain was out there or who held it until the announcements started being made (again, if you look at the timeline, you see that the first announcement was in Feb 2007 right after the Dems took office).
We have just been riding on Clinton’s immaculate governing until 2006, but even his almost God-like administration couldn’t keep it going through two more years. I don’t even know what that means.
So how long do we have the democrats in charge before they begin to take responsibility for putting their special interest over the country? How many years (two, so far) before they will be responsible in your eyes. Can you give me a date, a decade, a century?
and what “special interests” would those be? and how have they put those intersts over the needs of the country?
as far as responsibility, I hold them responsible for what they do - I hold them responsible for not fighting the FISA abomination. I hold them responsible for not fighting Robert’s appointment to the SC. I hold them responsible for trying to play fair in the GOP sandbox only to capitulate to every single thing Bush wanted.
So why did we elect the democrats in 2006? They claimed to have the answers and now you are telling me that they really didn’t? no one claimed to have the answers to the current financial crisis in 2006 because no one except a few random voices in the wilderness said it was going to be a problem (heck, even Bernanke didn’t think it was going to blow up to be the problem it has become)
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Some of the money doesn’t go to the US. But the vast majority of it does. Show me a graph, show me a chart, show me facts and numbers, show me anything that says that the war In Iraq has hurt our economy.
So what is your stance on the *forced public voting on Unions? Instead of s private vote, Union officers can literally stand over your shoulder watching you cast your ballot. This is a huge stance that you party is taking. Our Union Controlled schools are horrible and our Union Controlled Auto-industry is producing cars with worst dependability than a Kia.
*Note the word “forced”. Expect that word to com up a lot in the next few years.
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this
on the auto bailout …
The Center for Automotive Research, an Ann Arbor, Mich., think tank pushing for a bailout, estimates a loss of nearly 2.5 million jobs if just half of the Big Three manufacturing capacity were shuttered - a possible scenario if GM files for protection.
About 240,000 of those job losses would be at the automakers, while 800,000 would be at various suppliers and dealerships. The other 1.4 million job losses would be at businesses that rely on automaker spending.
For example, the Big Three have made deep cuts in their advertising budgets. That is already fueling media industry layoffs. Reduced spending by auto company employees who lose their jobs would hurt stores and other businesses in cities where plants are located.
http:// money. cnn.com/ 2008/11/17/news/ companies/gm_showdown/?postversion=2008111707 (copy/paste/delete extra spaces blahblahblah)
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
So what is your stance on the forced public voting on Unions?
hate to disappoint you, but I’m all for secret ballots. it’s the American Way.
By Trunk Monkey
November 17, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this
TOJ - strangely enough our grandchildren will be dealing with Iran because Carter supported Islam over our Ally, getting rid of the Shaw
c’mon TOJ. You know that this isn’t true. If you don’t, you should.
The Iran our grandchildren will be dealing with is a direct result of our meddling in the middle east, in particular the CIA-led coup d’etat that put Shah Pahlavi in power and killed the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq.
Carter most definitly didn’t “support Islam” and he most certainly didn’t aid the Iranian revolutionaries in deposing the Shah. No, Carter didn’t freeze out the new government. He thought it better to talk to them than allow Moscow a foothold in the region. Which might have been a mistake as it was his negotiations with that government which led the theocrats to fear another US-led coup was in the works. Especially after Carter welcomed Pahlavi to the US for medical treament. These are, in part, what led to the Iranian Hostage Crisis and ultimaely to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Not Jimmy Carter betraying “our friend”.
By GOB
November 17, 2008 12:05 PM | Link to this
Our Union Controlled schools are horrible
Unions don’t control all public schools. It varies from state to state, and in GA, the “union” (really just two lobby groups) has very little control, and not much more influence.
I’d be interested in a comparison of “union states” and educational quality compared to those states with little union control like GA. Not sure what the result would be, but it has me curious…off to research.
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this
USinUK
The special interests would be Unions and Environmental Groups. The only reason why the Auto-makers don’t want Chapter 11 is that it would negate Union contracts.
25 Billion more dollars to preserve Union Contracts. And you are worried about our grandchildren.
So again, how long do Republicans set at home. retire, die, buried and forgotten before they are no longer blamed for the problems that a Democratic government resides over?
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this
USinUK
Apples and Oranges. No one is talking about “Shuttering” the companies. re-organization is the word.
By Bruno
November 17, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this
Well, it looks like the USinUK-TOJ show is back in full-force this AM. ; > }
One year of incomplete data equals “hard-core academic analysis?” Not nearly.
Which is exactly what I was saying—You seem to think that my posts should be held to some high level of scrutiny which isn’t warranted. 99% of what I write is simply “banter”, the same as everyone else here. The bottom line is that Obama’s voting record has been very liberal, both as a State Senator and as a US Senator. Whether he deserves the label of “most” liberal isn’t necessarily of great import, though it makes a great talking point. The bigger point is that he is NOT a centrist in any way as many of you would like to paint him as being.
When Bush took office in January 2001, unemployment was at 4.2% and rose to 6.3% in June 2003. It then proceded to fall to 4.4% in October 2006 when it started to rise again (currently, the unemployment rate is 6.5%).
USinUK (and JokesOn)—My point, once again, is that, in a general way, the unemployment figures under Clinton and Bush were fairly similar as reflected by the identical averages, in contrast to all the doom-and-gloom reports by the media and the liberal posters the past 7+ years. If you guys want to analyze the data to the Nth degree to prove that my statement holds no water, then I won’t stand in your way.
By Bruno
November 17, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this
We do sometimes have a difference of opinion, but I don’t think either of us look at these discussions as win-lose “arguments”. Since I’m a news junkie and he’d rather watch Speed TV than C-Span, it’s usually him asking “Why’n the heck is the government doing (insert appropriate idiocy)?” to which I explain as best I can. I really, really try to present both sides of the issue before telling him what I think.
My “entertainment” tastes are likely more in line with your hubby’s than yours. Honestly, politics and news aren’t really my bag, though I do my best to stay informed about current events. It sounds like you two have evolved a sensible way to deal with differences of opinions. Out of curiosity, was Mr. Mara happy to see Jimmy Johnson win the Sprint Cup Championship? Most hard-core racing fans don’t seem to like him very much, though he isn’t as hated as either Jeff Gordon or Kyle Bush.
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
Show me a graph, show me a chart, show me facts and numbers, show me anything that says that the war In Iraq has hurt our economy.
your wish …
There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no such thing as a free war. The Iraq adventure has seriously weakened the U.S. economy, whose woes now go far beyond loose mortgage lending. You can’t spend $3 trillion — yes, $3 trillion — on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.
-snip-
Why doesn’t the public understand the staggering scale of our expenditures? In part because the administration talks only about the upfront costs, which are mostly handled by emergency appropriations. (Iraq funding is apparently still an emergency five years after the war began.) These costs, by our calculations, are now running at $12 billion a month — $16 billion if you include Afghanistan. By the time you add in the costs hidden in the defense budget, the money we’ll have to spend to help future veterans, and money to refurbish a military whose equipment and materiel have been greatly depleted, the total tab to the federal government will almost surely exceed $1.5 trillion.
-snip-
The long-term burden of paying for the conflicts will curtail the country’s ability to tackle other urgent problems, no matter who wins the presidency in November. Our vast and growing indebtedness inevitably makes it harder to afford new health-care plans, make large-scale repairs to crumbling roads and bridges, or build better-equipped schools. Already, the escalating cost of the wars has crowded out spending on virtually all other discretionary federal programs, including the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and federal aid to states and cities, all of which have been scaled back significantly since the invasion of Iraq.
To make matters worse, the U.S. economy is facing a recession. But our ability to implement a truly effective economic-stimulus package is crimped by expenditures of close to $200 billion on the two wars this year alone and by a skyrocketing national debt.
The United States is a rich and strong country, but even rich and strong countries squander trillions of dollars at their peril. Think what a difference $3 trillion could make for so many of the United States’ — or the world’s — problems. We could have had a Marshall Plan to help desperately poor countries, winning the hearts and maybe the minds of Muslim nations now gripped by anti-Americanism. In a world with millions of illiterate children, we could have achieved literacy for all — for less than the price of a month’s combat in Iraq. We worry about China’s growing influence in Africa, but the upfront cost of a month of fighting in Iraq would pay for more than doubling our annual current aid spending on Africa.
Closer to home, we could have funded countless schools to give children locked in the underclass a shot at decent lives. Or we could have tackled the massive problem of Social Security, which Bush began his second term hoping to address; for far, far less than the cost of the war, we could have ensured the solvency of Social Security for the next half a century or more.
Economists used to think that wars were good for the economy, a notion born out of memories of how the massive spending of World War II helped bring the United States and the world out of the Great Depression. But we now know far better ways to stimulate an economy — ways that quickly improve citizens’ well-being and lay the foundations for future growth. But money spent paying Nepalese workers in Iraq (or even Iraqi ones) doesn’t stimulate the U.S. economy the way that money spent at home would — and it certainly doesn’t provide the basis for long-term growth the way investments in research, education or infrastructure would.
http://www. washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/ article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html
if you don’t like the WaPo, read Ron Paul (http://www. antiwar.com/paul/)
or you could check Global Research (http://www. globalresearch.ca/ index.php?context=va&aid=713)
or the council for foreign relations (http://www. cfr.org/ publication/15404/)
I know you’ll ignore them all because they don’t fit into your world view that massive deficit spending on Iraq is GRRRRRRRReat! - but there they are.
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this
Trunk Monkey
The Shaw allowed the elections that put Mohammed Mosaddeq in power. Mosaddeq immediately nationalized all the oil companies, basically taking over the billion dollar petroleum industry that the British had paid for. This immediately pushed a very unstable and import dependent Iran into a huge panic as imports dried up from the embargoes placed on the thieving Iranian Government.
We and the English pushed the Shaw to regain power to protect our interest and the economy of a country that literally didn’t have the work force to produce a drop of oil. And this is what you call meddling.
The Shaw of Iran was fighting an Islamic rebellion led by the Ayatollah (still living in France). The Shaw asked Carter for help. Since Carter believed that the rebellion was about religion, Carter supported the rebellion, against the wishes of the Shaw. This refusal to protect our ally is exactly the reason the Ayatollah was able to gain power. And the rest is a very sad history.
As long as the democrats keep insisting that we cannot produce our own petroleum, we will need to deal with the middle east. When we stop meddling, we stop driving. Your choice.
By Bruno
November 17, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
no one claimed to have the answers to the current financial crisis in 2006 because no one except a few random voices in the wilderness said it was going to be a problem (heck, even Bernanke didn’t think it was going to blow up to be the problem it has become)
Make sure you give McCain some credit as one of those “voices in the wilderness”.
I actually have more optimism regarding the economy, both domestic and around the world, now that energy prices have fallen significantly. Regardless of what industry you are in, you need energy to run it, so that impacts us all. I was wrong several months ago in predicting that gas prices wouldn’t fall this far, primarily because I had little faith that people would begin conserving. As I’ve always stated, a 10% reduction in demand would result in a disproportionately larger reduction in prices, aw we have seen lately.
BTW, USinUK, how do you and your hubby handle political disagreements? Or do you almost always agree?
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this
Bruno -
My point, once again, is that, in a general way, the unemployment figures under Clinton and Bush were fairly similar as reflected by the identical averages, in contrast to all the doom-and-gloom reports by the media and the liberal posters the past 7+ years. If you guys want to analyze the data to the Nth degree to prove that my statement holds no water, then I won’t stand in your way.
first of all, as I said to TOJ, the president has very little to do with unemployment directly to begin with (tangentially, yes - but I think it is wrong to directly connect the dots between President A and Unemployment Rate B)
secondly, if you would go back and reread my post, my point is that averages may “hold water” but they don’t say anything. if they are the same for both but went up for one and went down for the other, then that is a significant difference.
hope you had a good weekend!! :-)
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this
USinUK
Who cares about the WaPo. And here’s why:
They talk about the money being spent, jut like you do. But where did the money go? They are saying that giving the money to other countries like the Marshall plan is the answer. If not the Marshall plan, give it all to the poor. Jesus. And that is what you listed as a source?
The Ron Paul link was a link to hundreds of Ron Paul Sites.
Not a single thing you listed addressed the issue we were discussing. All said that we spent the money, no one said a single thing about where the money went.
You did what i knew you would do. You listed other people whining about spending the money. You did not list facts about where the money is going. You didn’t list a single figure to back up anything you said.
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 12:50 PM | Link to this
Bruno -
BTW, USinUK, how do you and your hubby handle political disagreements? Or do you almost always agree?
we agree … to not discuss it. he’s apolitical (has never even voted - for which I have shamed him), but has Tory leanings. Now that I think about it, I think we agree on more things than we realize (conservative fiscal policy, libertarian social policy), but differ on international policies.
although, he does like to wind me up on my hot-button issues.
By Bruno
November 17, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this
which I am way to Scottish to be
LOL, USinUK. That tidbit of info certainly explains a lot about you! People of Scottish descent have a lot to be proud of, of course. Many, many smart inventors came from Scottish heritage, including Alexander Graham Bell.
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
The only reason why the Auto-makers don’t want Chapter 11 is that it would negate Union contracts.
untrue - the main reason automakers (and most congress critters) don’t want the Big 3 to declare Chapter 11 is a little thing called DEFAULT. Do you have any idea how many organizations own auto debt (bonds)? All of the sudden, the balance sheets for other companies - including banks and insurance companies - are going to take a massive hit.
additionally, these companies wouldn’t be able to take on new debt by selling new bonds.
THAT is why. criminey, the UAW is small pickins compared to the shockwave that would happen if they declared bankruptcy. Frankly, it would be almost as bad as another Lehman.
No one is talking about “Shuttering” the companies. re-organization is the word.
jeez loueeez TOJ, what do you think “re-organization” IS??? it’s not moving people to new desks … it’s closing down operations and laying people off - in other words, shuttering some of the operations
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this
Bruno -
That tidbit of info certainly explains a lot about you! People of Scottish descent have a lot to be proud of, of course.
you realize that the Scots invented copper wire don’t you … it was 2 guys fighting over a penny …
By Mara
November 17, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this
Bruno - Out of curiosity, was Mr. Mara happy to see Jimmy Johnson win the Sprint Cup Championship?
We are, at best, casual NASCAR watchers. Our adult beverage of choice is Lite Beer from Miller, so we’re usually rooting for poor, ol’ bad-luck prone Kurt Busch (we figure that if we’re helping to pay for the car, we might as well cheer for it). I’m sure that Jimmy’s a nice enough guy, but I felt kinda sorry for Carl Edwards. Even though he won the race Johnson got the majority of the attention. They barely showed Edwards victory lap there at the end.
The Mister was much more stoked to see Cruz Pedregon clinch his second NHRA Funny Car championship.
By Bruno
November 17, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this
first of all, as I said to TOJ, the president has very little to do with unemployment directly to begin with (tangentially, yes - but I think it is wrong to directly connect the dots between President A and Unemployment Rate B)
I can’t answer for TOJ, but I never made any attempt to link who was in office to what the unemployment rate was during that time. My point was more a commentary on the doom-and-gloom reports coming from the media and from left-leaning acquanitances the past 7+ years. On many levels, life is about the same under Bush as it was under Clinton, though you wouldn’t know that based on the general negative feeling toward Bush. That’s all.
hope you had a good weekend!! :-)
Thanks. I was in school for the most part, taking the last installment in a post-graduate course on Physical Therapy. Have I got some core exercises for you! I am excited about next weekend, however, when my poker league resumes. I’m feeling lucky lately, so should do well. How was your weekend? It was beautiful out at Stone Mountain—deep blue sky with clean, crisp air. We walked all the way around the mountain (5 miles), so got some good exercise.
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
Who cares about the WaPo. And here’s why: They talk about the money being spent, jut like you do. But where did the money go? They are saying that giving the money to other countries like the Marshall plan is the answer. If not the Marshall plan, give it all to the poor. Jesus. And that is what you listed as a source?
nice job not reading any of the articles. jsut as I knew you would
By Bruno
November 17, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this
although, he does like to wind me up on my hot-button issues.
I like him already!
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this
USinUK
LOL!! Chapter 11 is not shutting down the companies. And the bond problem? Their stocks and bonds have been worthless for weeks, now. Ford was selling at $125/share two weeks ago. It had been steady at $85/share for years.
I own two cars., Both were built in plants that were converted to robotics before my cars were built. One car is a 93 and it is as good as the 2007. The UAW doesn’t allow robotics to be used where they will replace a Union Employer. Find a 93 Chevy that is anywhere close to my poor, uncared for Volvo as far as dependability. Find a 2009 American Made car that will seat 7, haul a ton and still get 25mpg on Regular fuel.
American cars are horrible and it is because of the UAW. I say that anything that frees them to compete with the rest of the world is a good thing.
By Mara
November 17, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this
Bruno - we’re not really NASCAR folks, though we do watch it. Since we consume enough Lite Beer from Miller to have, in part, paid for Kurt Busch’s vehicle, he’s the one we usually cheer for. I’m sure Jimmy Johnson is a nice enough guy and deserved his win, I felt kinda sorry for Carl Edwards. He won the race, but they cut the video of him to go to a Jimmy Johnson interview.
The Mister was way more stoked about Cruz Pedregon winning the NHRA Funny Car championship.
By Bruno
November 17, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this
The Shaw allowed the elections that put Mohammed Mosaddeq in power. Mosaddeq immediately nationalized all the oil companies, basically taking over the billion dollar petroleum industry that the British had paid for. This immediately pushed a very unstable and import dependent Iran into a huge panic as imports dried up from the embargoes placed on the thieving Iranian Government.
Testify, TOJ! P.S. I believe the English rendition is spelled “Shah”.
Ooops correction for me from last week: I mentioned the FTC in relation to the “Fairness Doctrine”, but meant the FCC. Hopefully this is a red herring as Mara stated, but a lot of conservative radio show hosts are sweating it out now.
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
as to your point that the US is spending money here in the US via defense contractors, then jobs should be plentiful, right? instead, Lockheed-Martin gone through layoffs (in TX, MD, GA, etc), Boeing has gone through layoffs, Sikorsky has gone through layoffs … shall I go on??? these companies - in particular, Lockheed, don’t just make planes, they make missiles as well, so you think business would be booming, right
(no pun intended)
so, if the war is sooooooooo good for our economy, why aren’t they hiring? why are they laying off, instead?
By Gale
November 17, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this
USinUK, I am so glad I was not drinking coffee when I read about the invention of copper wire. It added some much needed levity into this morning portion of disagreements. I admire that you continue to try, knowing TOJ will reject any and all commentary opposed to his position.
TOJ, if the presented data are all wrong, present something to support your position and I will give your views a hearing. Otherwise, I figure you are shooting from the hip, just as I usually do.
By Bruno
November 17, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this
Bruno - we’re not really NASCAR folks, though we do watch it. Since we consume enough Lite Beer from Miller to have, in part, paid for Kurt Busch’s vehicle, he’s the one we usually cheer for.
Too funny! I’m not a beer drinker, which differentiates me from most racing fans.
I’m sure Jimmy Johnson is a nice enough guy and deserved his win, I felt kinda sorry for Carl Edwards. He won the race, but they cut the video of him to go to a Jimmy Johnson interview.
I feel the same way every time they cut ANY driver’s interview short in order to speak with “Jr.” NASCAR wants so badly for him to win a championship, but he’s just not cut from the same cloth as his father.
The Mister was way more stoked about Cruz Pedregon winning the NHRA Funny Car championship.
I occasionally watch a “top fuel dragster” race while flipping channels. It’s amazing that John Force is still hanging in there after all these years.
By Mara
November 17, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this
Bruno - we’re not really NASCAR folks, though we do watch it. Since we consume enough Lite Beer from Miller to have, in part, paid for Kurt Busch’s vehicle, he’s the one we usually cheer for. I’m sure Jimmy Johnson is a nice enough guy and deserved his win, I felt kinda sorry for Carl Edwards. He won the race, but they cut the video of him to go to a Jimmy Johnson interview.
The Mister was way more stoked about Cruz Pedregon winning the NHRA Funny Car championship.
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this
GOB
The NEA and the GAE have both been clients. They have a huge amount of influence in Georgia’s schools, including text book choices and curriculum.
Like most jobs for Unions, we went first class. Top of the line restaurants, Rent a spare camera, just in case … Let’s get a lighting guy for these outdoor interviews. Don’t take a taxi from the airport, take a “car”. (Lincoln towncar, just short of a limo)
I’ve belonged to two Unions. They have never done anything for me or my dues. But the big dogs at the Unions sure like their upscale resturants and their limos.
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
Their stocks and bonds have been worthless for weeks, now
and you’re still not getting it - once they go into bankruptcy, their bonds that are currently in the market and that companies have on their books are worthless and will cause another round of write-downs, further weakening the economy.
again, look at the Lehman fall-out - this would be just about as bad.
as for making the auto industry competitive with the rest of the world, then instigate a national health care scheme like those in the UK and Europe so that the companies don’t have to foot the bill for health care (which is the biggest rising cost for pensioners and current employees). THAT will solve your union problems.
okay - heading home … back online in an hourish
By Bruno
November 17, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this
you realize that the Scots invented copper wire don’t you … it was 2 guys fighting over a penny …
I thought that was two Jews…..
BTW, what is the ultimate Jewish dilemma?? Pork on sale.
I did have to laugh while talking with my Ukrainian friend a few months back. I asked her if she had ever been to Moldova. She explained that Ukrainian people look down their nose at the Moldovans and like to tell jokes about them. She then proceeded to tell me a joke which I originally heard being told about Alabamians. Too funny.
Real quick: Why do they call it PMS? Because the name “Mad Cow Disease” was already taken…. ; > }
By Bruno
November 17, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this
I picked the name out of frustration the first time I posted…hehe… I will have to think about this…..But yes, maybe it is time I change…
Well, that will give us something to look forward to, Frustrated. Hope you come up with a good one, you Bible Thumper, you!!
I found out yesterday that Deep Blue Sun will actually be on the same bill as the Grapes in two weeks, so it will definitely be a smokin’ show (pun intended).
Still at the Variety??????
Yes, still at the Variety. You will recognize me since I’m usually the only guy with short hair.
By Bruno
November 17, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this
Gotta run, but thought Paul Simon might sing for us today:
Whoah God only knows, God makes his plan
The information’s unavailable to the mortal man
We’re workin’ our jobs, collect our pay
Believe we’re gliding down the highway, when in fact we’re slip sliding away
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this
Gale
TOJ, if the presented data are all wrong, present something to support your position and I will give your views a hearing. Otherwise, I figure you are shooting from the hip, just as I usually do.
There was no data presented. Just other people whining about money being spent.
What data would you like to prove that American fighter Jets are built in America? What data would you like to prove that American Naval vessels are built in Norfolk? What data would you like to prove that the vast majority of money spent on a war is spent on material that is produced in the US?
I would ask about the difference between WWII which pulled us out of a Depression because of the money that went back into the US economy; and the Iraq War, which for some unknown reason doesn’t help the US economy, but I’m pretty sure that you would post article after article claiming that the money spent on the war is hurting our economy. No reason. No facts. Just that a Republican War is so bad that for the first tike in history, a country is losing money to build war equipment.
Perhaps a book or two about Michael Angelo and his main sources of finance would be a good read for you. You know that he made his living off designing and building weapons, don’t you? His “Art” was a hobby, which paid almost nothing.
The question is very simple: Maybe you can answer it. Why is the money spent on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan NOT going back into the US economy? Yes, we are spending a lot of money to rebuild over there, but that money is a fraction of what just one B-2 Spirit costs. We have built a squadron of them since 2000. The F-22 is quickly replacing the F-15 as the world’s dominate fighter and most of our allies have ordered several of them. How many billions will go back into the Atlanta economy just from that one plant in Marietta? Our new attack subs cost billions and are built in the US. Does the town that supports that factory get those billions? How many examples would you like?
So why do those billions going back into our economy mean that we are hurting our economy?
if you can look at all those billions going to US companies to build the equipment in US plants, paying US workers and using US contractors and still believe that the war hurts our economy, what facts and figures could I post that would change your mind?
By Mara
November 17, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this
I have no idea what’s going on with my comments. I apologize for the multiple posts. grrr.
By Bruno
November 17, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this
I apologize for the multiple posts. grrr.
Don’t sweat it, Mara. Your posts are usually so good that they are worth repeating!
By Frustrated
November 17, 2008 2:25 PM | Link to this
You will recognize me since I’m usually the only guy with short hair.
Hmmmmm….my husband has short hair too….if you have the same reasons, then I will look for the balding spot.. HAHA
Since I picked my name last time by the mood I was in…maybe I should just change names every day… Today I would be “Peachy”
By Gale
November 17, 2008 2:25 PM | Link to this
TOJ, ok you are forcing me to do my own research. Google shows me the newest naval vessel was built a year ago. I am guessing we don’t exactly churn these out. Yes, in the US. I know about bombers and I remember that at least one design was built and paid for and then scrapped for some reason. All heavy armament examples that are not used much in urban warfare, which is what is being fought in Iraq. I know very well that Michael Angelo designed weapons. I know very well that technological innovations come from weapons development. I also know many technological innovations came from the space program at a small fraction of the cost and very few lost lives or maimed workers.
Yes, there will always be people who profit from war. The cost is too high. From an early age, I have found it entirely wrong that the USA professes to be for peace, yet is the larges arms manufacturer in the world. I will leave it for now until I have more time to research.
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this
USinUK
Talk about clutching your pearls …
I read the article posted which said:
refurbish a military whose equipment and materiel have been greatly depleted, the total tab to the federal government will almost surely exceed $1.5 trillion.
So where is that 1.5 Trillion going to be spent? Where’s the money going, girl? Don’t cry because you can’t present anything that refutes what I am saying.
WHY DID WWII SAVE US BUT THE MONEY BEING SPENT ON THE EQUIPMENT TO FIGHT THIS WAR IS HURTING OUR ECONOMY?
Easy question. Don’t post the same crap you are spouting which does not even address where the money is going. WHERE IS IT GOING?
Why do I have to do this, to go to such lengths to get past this hen house mentality?
THINK. Give me a reason that this economy is hurt by the trillions that will go into the economy because of the Iraq war. Tell me oh great economic expert, why is Lockheed getting a contract for 30 billion dollars bad for Marietta?
THINK. DARE to question all these articles that stop making sense if you bother to ask some pretty obvious questions.
By Frustrated
November 17, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this
Here is a song I thought of today while reading all these posts…enjoy!
Hey, Mr. President, Can you tell me where my money went? Eighty hours a week And I’m breakin’ my bones, And I can barely feed my three kids at home. Bills and debts are all I call mine. I got a foot in the grave, Or in the welfare line. Come November Gonna go downtown. Gonna pick me up a ballot, And I’ll write this down.
Anyone but you would be just fine. Anyone but you can have this vote of mine. I don’t believe what you say is true, So I’m gonna vote for anyone but you.
Hey, Mr. President, Can you tell me why my boy got sent Across the ocean and off to war, And we don’t even know what we’re fightin’ for? Nuclear bombs, Poison gas, Would you send your own son off so fast? Probably not, ‘cause the rich don’t fight. They just sit back and let the poor kids die. Come November Gonna go downtown. Gonna pick me up a ballot, And I’ll write this down.
Anyone but you would be just fine. Anyone but you can have this vote of mine. I don’t believe what you say is true, So I’m gonna vote for anyone but you.
Hey, Mr. President, Can you tell me where my job went? I went today and the factories were closed. They’re movin’ it all down to Mexico. See you on the T.V. every night Sayin’ everything’s gonna be alright, But I dunno just what I’ll do. Maybe me and my family could move in with you. Probably not so I go downtown Pick me up a ballot and I write this down.
Anyone but you would be just fine. Anyone but you could have this vote of mine. I don’t believe what you say is true, So I’m gonna vote for anyone but you.
Oh, give me John Kerry Give me Howard Dean. Give me John Edwards Or Steve McQueen. Or Al Sharpton, I don’t mind. You can give me Ray Charles. At least I know he’s blind. Or Ronald Reagan Or Schwartzenegger I’d rather have an actor than just a faker. Gary Coleman Or the guy from Cheers Or bring Clinton back for four more years. Barry Goldwater Or Colin Powell I’m sure you know what I mean by now.
Anyone but you would be just fine. Anyone but you could have this vote of mine. I don’t believe what you say is true, So I’m gonna vote for anyone but you.
By Bruno
November 17, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this
Hmmmmm….my husband has short hair too….if you have the same reasons, then I will look for the balding spot.. HAHA
Like they say, God only made so many perfectly shaped heads. The rest He covered with hair.
Actually, I am thinning slightly at the crown of my head like my mother’s father. It bothers me only because people otherwise compliment me on how young I look. I guess we can’t be young forever……
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this
Gale
I have also been looking for facts. i found a list of the hundreds of helicopters that need to be replaced. Humvees. Transport ships. USinUK’s own post says that 1.5 trillion will be needed to replace equipment used in this war. 1.5 trillion. Even if only a cool trillion makes it back to the US economy, is that going to hurt us?
Yes, the US is bad for profiting from war, bla, bla, bla. But this is not the question. YOUR party and most of the media has said for four years that the war has been bad for the economy, but after doing your own research, you find that, yes, we do profit from war. DUH?
Am I at least getting you to see what a load of crap we have been fed for the last eight years? If they can convince you that for the first time in history a country is losing money on fighting and supplying a foreign war, (something as basic as that) just exactly how powerful is their propaganda?
You or USinUK are not stupid. But you both will defend this ridicules stance, but after research, the only thing you can determine is that the US is bad for war profiting.
I would guess that within a few months, you guys will be defending Obama’s refusal to leave Iraq and one of the points will be that war is good for the economy. And strangely enough, I’m sure you will be able to post dozens of WaPo articles about it.
.
By Frustrated
November 17, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this
Like they say, God only made so many perfectly shaped heads. The rest He covered with hair
HAHAHA, I would tell my husband that, but then I wouldn’t get to joke about it anymore..
By Bruno
November 17, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this
Yes, there will always be people who profit from war. The cost is too high. From an early age, I have found it entirely wrong that the USA professes to be for peace, yet is the larges arms manufacturer in the world. I will leave it for now until I have more time to research.
Gale, as sad as it may be, it is a part of human nature to fight. Just look how people behave once they get behind the wheel of an auto, insulated from direct contact with the other drivers. It is also part of human nature to form hierarchies based on power. That is why the Godfather responded “Respect” when asked “Godfather, would you rather people love you or respect you?” You may think less of me for saying so, but I’m glad I live in the most powerful nation in the world.
Why do I have to do this, to go to such lengths to get past this hen house mentality?
If you’re expecting any acknowledgement that your arguments may be right, TOJ, you came to the wrong blog. Sorry.
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this
Gale -
I am so glad I was not drinking coffee when I read about the invention of copper wire. It added some much needed levity into this morning portion of disagreements.
and my other favorite Scots joke: if the Rolling Stones had been Scottish, their song would have been “Hey McCleod, Get Off of My Ewe”
(and, yes, that still makes me laugh)
I admire that you continue to try, knowing TOJ will reject any and all commentary opposed to his position.
meh - it’s become a source of amusement, watching him twist and turn to avoid those funny little things called facts.
By Gale
November 17, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this
TOJ, has anyone ever told you that you are a sexist b@stard? Hen house mentality, is it? Anyone who disagrees must be a woman? You have a problem, sir.
So, the answer to the automakers’ problems must be to retool for tanks. We will simply switch from building pickups and SUVs to building vehicles for the military. Maybe some of the costs of tax dollar purchases of those vehicles for the USA will be offset by purchases of them by foreign powers, (who sometimes sell them to people who do not like us.) We can just go on blowing them up so we can build more and keep jobs. Yeah, that will work! Disregard the flying limbs and blood when one blows. It is in the interest of the global economy.
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
i found a list of the hundreds of helicopters that need to be replaced. Humvees. Transport ships. USinUK’s own post says that 1.5 trillion will be needed to replace equipment used in this war. 1.5 trillion. Even if only a cool trillion makes it back to the US economy, is that going to hurt us?
one, no one is arguing that things will need to be replaced - but, who says that US companies are going to be the ones replacing them? as I cited earlier, more and more defense contracts are going to non-US copmpanies (so, in other words, your tax dollars are going to France to pay for their health care system). again, Navy 1 is no longer made by Sikorsky and N-G, not Boeing, got the contract for the tankers.
two - let’s say you’re right … that some of the $1.5T gets to stay in the country. Yes, that will help the defense industries (L-M, Boeing) to build, let’s say, 100 planes (or tanks or whatever it is you want built).
while that has a decent impact job-wise, it doesn’t employ as many people as contracts to improve US roads/bridges, or to build new schools/hospitals, or any other of the hundreds of infrastructure projects THE US NEEDS.
for the record - I’m all about defense spending (grew up in the shadow of Lockheed in Marietta - it put bread on our table). However, when we talk about the Iraq war, the days of Rosie the Riveter where everyone lent a hand with the war effort and jobs were created all over the country as businesses were retooled to meet the war needs - those days are long gone.
By Gale
November 17, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this
I haven’t finished my research, TOJ. I actually do work during the day. I think what grinds most people is the millions that end up in invididula pockets, not the cost of a HumVee or a helicopter. How many millions have gone to Iraq to build that we later learned disappeared without explanation of where the money was spent? Those are the millions that rankle.
And granted, military equipment must be replaced from time to time to stay current, I prefer that to the replacement cost from destruction of said equipment. But I respectfully oppose the idea that humans are violent by nature. Advances in weaponry have only made it easier to kill more people from more distance. If violence alone was the goal, we should have kept the clubs.
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this
USinUK
As I said, yes some money does go to other places, but the vast majority comes here.
But here’s the point: Why was that so completely discounted in the media’s treatment of the war?
I don’t believe anybody about anything anymore.
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this
Total aside … apropos to absolutely nothing …
in today’s news - there was a story that some half-wit bid £1M for the house that Beckham grew up in. Now, to put this in prospective, it’s not a particularly nice area (in the Northeast) and, on its own, would probably be valued at around £250,000
so. is there any person (sports hero or otherwise) that you would pay £1M to live in the house they grew up in? Tiger Woods? Michael Jordan? or maybe a musician (Bruno)??
and, in keepeing with the spirit, the house can’t be like something on Cribs - I’m talking a middle-class ranch or townhouse - but something you’d pay WAY over the value just because your hero once lived there?
would you do it? and if so, for whom???
By Monica
November 17, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this
The auto mess is a big one. Don’t bail them out, and millions lose their jobs, thereby creating domino effect in our already crippled economy. Bail them out, and who will be next? How many trillions of dollars will we end up borrowing from Peter to bail out Paul, so that he can in turn re-pay Peter?
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this
Gale
Considering that I have openly maintained that the main hen is a guy posing as a pregnant woman discounts your accusation.
But yes, when several woman (and men) always take the same stance against anyone outside the henhouse, automatically cop the attitude that facts don’t matter, that constitutes a henhouse mentality. Anyone who disagrees with the henhouse has a mental problem, throws tantrums, etc, etc. If you don’t like the name, change the bahavior.
By USinUK
November 17, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this
toj -
Why was that so completely discounted in the media’s treatment of the war?
I have an answer for you - but dinner is ready. if I can’t get back on tonight, I’ll post my reply first thing
(didn’t want to leave you hanging)
By Bruno
November 17, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this
Considering that I have openly maintained that the main hen is a guy posing as a pregnant woman discounts your accusation.
TOJ, if you can believe anything I say, believe this: JokesOn has only posted under his own name. His writing style is completely different from Sunshine’s and every other poster’s.
or maybe a musician (Bruno)??
I’m not one to buy memorabilia, etc. It just doesn’t mean that much to me. I’m happy living my own life and don’t need to live vicariously through others. As for paying a million to live somewhere, would your hubby be open to an Indecent Proposal? I would consider that to be a bargain. ; > }
By Lyrazel
November 17, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this
Lieberman is an independent not a democrat. He can cross as many party lines as he wants to. He can keep as many friends as a politician wants.
By Monica
November 17, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this
My other two cents: how can anyone seriously consider pressing charges against someone who used confidential info to avoid a huge loss in the stock market (a la insider trading), when the CEO’s of bankrupted companies are not only walking away scot free but with their wallets stuffed with millions in severance packages? Sorry, I’m just in a “that’s not fair” mood this aft.
By Bruno
November 17, 2008 4:03 PM | Link to this
Lieberman is an independent not a democrat. He can cross as many party lines as he wants to.
Hi, Lyrazel. The reason the Democrats won’t ask him to leave the aprty is simple: They don’t want to lose their supermajority in the Senate.
He can keep as many friends as a politician wants.
Or did you perhaps mean “all the friends that money can buy”? (With apologies to Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show).
By Bruno
November 17, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this
Sorry, I’m just in a “that’s not fair” mood this aft.
I empathize with you, Monica. All of these bailouts make me sick.
By Gale
November 17, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this
TOJ, stuff it. You have a problem, sir. The problem is women.
USinUK, If I had bales of money to buy a house my hero lived in as a child? Nah, not even my favorite writer. Now, the house that person lived in as an adult? THat might be up for consideration.
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 4:12 PM | Link to this
Bruno
Pal, believe whatever you want. If you believe HeeHaw and all the other sideline snipers that always show up when JokesOn shows up isn’t him, that’s your business. You know him no better than anyone else. I have caught him too many times not changing names back before posting.
As far as Sunshine? Again, believe what you want. She came here knowing everything about everyone, including my dead child which I had not mentioned for weeks before she showed up. it takes a very unique mentality that allows a person to believe that it is acceptable to “dig” at others because of the death of a child. She and Joke share that mentality. And after spending a whole morning trying to converse with only the “two” of them, they were soon confusing my posts and answering with the same disjointed logic.
Sorry pal. Believe what you want. So will I.
By The Other Jack
November 17, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this
Gale
Aren’t you the person that was saying that Sarah Palin should stay at home because she has children? Talk about sexist. And a hypocrite.
My problem isn’t with women. It’s with idiots and bigots.
By Bruno
November 17, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this
If you believe HeeHaw and all the other sideline snipers that always show up when JokesOn shows up isn’t him, that’s your business.
HeeHaw = Chilao. Snort.
You know him no better than anyone else.
True, but his writing style is distinct.
As far as Sunshine? Again, believe what you want. She came here knowing everything about everyone, including my dead child which I had not mentioned for weeks before she showed up. it takes a very unique mentality that allows a person to believe that it is acceptable to “dig” at others because of the death of a child.
Sunshine stated that she lurked for a while before actually posting, and thus heard your story about your ex-wife aborting. Also, I don’t think that she was trying to “dig” at you, TOJ. You appear to be angry a good bit of the time, and I believe she was expressing concern for you, that’s all.
And after spending a whole morning trying to converse with only the “two” of them, they were soon confusing my posts and answering with the same disjointed logic.
All of the posters here often subconsciously mirror other posters’ words. That doesn’t prove anything in and of itself.
Sorry pal. Believe what you want. So will I.
No problem. If it’s any consolation to you, I tried to raise the same argument several weeks ago that war = jobs, but didn’t get any agreement at that time either. If your goal in coming here is to get acknowledgement that your arguments are right, you’re going to remain “Frustrated”. That’s just how it is on W2W.
By Frustrated
November 17, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this
As far as Sunshine? Again, believe what you want. She came here knowing everything about everyone, including my dead child which I had not mentioned for weeks before she showed up. it takes a very unique mentality that allows a person to believe that it is acceptable to “dig” at others because of the death of a child. She and Joke share that mentality. And after spending a whole morning trying to converse with only the “two” of them, they were soon confusing my posts and answering with the same disjointed logic.
The past posts are archived. Before I started posting, I went back and read a LOT of other articles and comments. Maybe Sunshine did the same thing, finding out about your past. That is where I read about the whole ordeal…I just didn’t comment on it…it has to be hard to go through that…
But the thing I don’t get is why you have to keep rehashing it EVERY day. It seems like everytime I log on, there is a comment about “my dead child”…..it is almost like you want everyone to pick at you…If not, why haven’t you just started ignoring them if they bother you? Why not be the bigger person?
Or….why not stop posting? If it bothers you that badly.. Again, I can’t imagine what you have been through, but come on…it seems as though you keep fueling the flames a little.
By Gale
November 17, 2008 4:32 PM | Link to this
TOJ, I said Palin should stay at home with the kiddies? I doubt it. I know I had doubts about her, but I doubt that was expressed as one of them. Take warmth from your anger. It will give you little else.
By Frustrated
November 17, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this
If your goal in coming here is to get acknowledgement that your arguments are right, you’re going to remain “Frustrated”.
Ok, I get it Bruno, I need to change my name…haha
By USinUK
November 18, 2008 8:30 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
Why was that so completely discounted in the media’s treatment of the war?
sorry didn’t check back in last night - was hanging with Mr. USinUK and enjoying our evening.
anyhoo …
why was the impact discounted by the media? Because of all the lies and snow-jobs, that’s why.
first of all the White House shot down the initial reports that the war would cost between $50-60 billion, saying it was “impossible” to give an estimate. They tried to discredit Larry Lindsey who said the war could cost $200 billion.
currently, we stand at about $800 billion.
and let’s look at what’s been done with that money:
We’ve lost an estimated $9 million in cash (that we know of), an estimated $10 BILLION has been wasted and/or mismanaged, Halliburton overcharges for things like MROs and latrines are estimated at $1.4 billion.
this isn’t stuff that is going to be pumped back into the economy via restocking - this literally is money down the tubes. your tax money, if I may add.
then you add to that the loss of productivity by the men and women who left able-bodied but didn’t come home that way (due to physical and/or mental injuries) - not to mention the additional spending that will need to pay for their care.
last on the list of things that won’t create jobs in the US: there is the $10 billion spent on Iraqi infrastructure and god-only-knows-how-much-money on the 75 military bases created there.
Okay. So. Let’s assume that the estimates that the government will need to spend $1 Trillion to replace the helicopters/tanks/guns, etc are true - and that money manages to stay in the US. First of all, those items are not going to be replaced all at once. Secondly, it’s not going to create that many jobs - $5 million spent on a plane does not create as many jobs as $5 million spent on roads or public infrastructure does or education or health care.
By USinUK
November 18, 2008 8:32 AM | Link to this
SHOOT!!! I forgot to add one thing … the lie that the Iraq war would pay for itself in oil revenues …
By USinUK
November 18, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this
Gale -
USinUK, If I had bales of money to buy a house my hero lived in as a child? Nah, not even my favorite writer. Now, the house that person lived in as an adult? THat might be up for consideration.
I’m with you - especially if that writer was Edith Wharton - I’d even consider moving back to MA if I could live in her home there … (although, there would have to be additional sweeteners to ever get me to move back to New England)
otherwise, this is another one of those WTF moments when you read about someone spending stupid money on something … and you can’t help but think “a fool and his money … “
By Lyrazel
November 18, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this
waves at folks Will Republicans give President Obama a fair shake? You mean line up like bobble-heads to shake his hand and smile at the cameras? Gosh gee golly whiz!! Somebody please teach those two women about how American government works!!! Whoever is president has control over budgets and bills with the power of veto. If republicans OR democrats want legislation passed they do as they have always done so if the president uses a veto against said legislation or bill then they just write what they want in some other bill that WILL pass. Same as it ever was.
By Mara
November 18, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this
so it looks like Hillary is going to accept the Secretary of State spot in Obama’s cabinet. The confirmation hearings should be…interesting.
By Sunshine
November 18, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this
Good Morning everybody!
Haven’t read up on all the comments yet, I had Friday and Monday off to help my Brother move and now I am swamped. I will have a lot of catching up to do today! Happy Tuesday! I will post as I can!
By USinUK
November 18, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this
Mara -
so it looks like Hillary is going to accept the Secretary of State spot in Obama’s cabinet. The confirmation hearings should be…interesting.
notsofastthere, missy … there are a number of things still outstanding, not the least of which - her husband (from today’s NYT):
That may be, but Mr. Clinton’s postpresidential life as a globe-trotting philanthropist, business consultant and speech-giver poses the highest hurdle for Mrs. Clinton to overcome if President-elect Barack Obama chooses to nominate her as secretary of state, according to aides of the Clintons and Mr. Obama.
I’d wait until we see the white smoke on this one -
By Gale
November 18, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this
I think Hillary could be a good SoS. It could go either way. SoS is expected to be on board with the Pres’s policies. In general, I think they do agree. If she does the job well, it would make both of them look good and strengthen the foreign policy credentials of both. She would be a fool to take the job if she did not think she could agree with Obama.
Auto bailouts. Apparently the big three have very large markets outside the US waiting for the cars they churn out. I say let them take a hit and move into those markets. It doesn’t help the oil prospect a lot. Those countries probably do not have the same mpg restrictions. On the other hand, gas is still an expensive commodity.
By USinUK
November 18, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this
Sunshine -
Haven’t read up on all the comments yet, I had Friday and Monday off to help my Brother move and now I am swamped. I will have a lot of catching up to do today! Happy Tuesday! I will post as I can!
hey stranger!!! the henhouse hasn’t been the same without you …
;-)
By The Other Jack
November 18, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
Bruno
If your goal in coming here is to get acknowledgement that your arguments are right, you’re going to remain “Frustrated”.
Please …
I don’t expect liberals to convert to reason or facts or anything else. I know the power of media indoctrination. Occasionally, I get a spark of life out of liberals that tells me that while they will never agree with me, they might … just might start THINKING about they are being fed. That’s all I can hope for.
As far as my child, he was killed 26 years ago. That gave me a definite stance on abortions and the criminality of some of the barbaric laws that discount the value of human life. I am a student of history and whenever any group of people start changing the names of humans to make that group feel better about supporting that human’s slaughter, I tend to take a stand. That usually makes the indoctrinated rather angry that anyone would dare to question what they are being taught. But I will continue to defend the helpless that are the target of the billion dollar abortion industry.
I started to post the initial “concerned” post that Sunshine/Joke first threw out there. It is obviously not about concern, but would it convince you of anything? I would rather not waste my time going through the archives. I very rarely initiate posts about my child, but I answer posts about my child and since “several” on here like to bring the subject up, I answer the posts. Now here again today, I have mentioned it so I’m sure “Frustrated” and/or others will have something to say about how i keep bringing it up. But in case you haven’t noticed, the opinions of me by strangers that have no intention of ever being fair on a political blog do not mean a lot to me.
As to my anger. It is frustrating trying to explain the obvious to people who have no sense of reason. But anger? You are giving these strangers way too much credit. Gale said this to me yesterday, again after a day of civil discussion: TOJ, has anyone ever told you that you are a sexist b@stard?. but strangely enough, you had nothing to say to her about her obvious anger.
I understand that you want to pal around with the girls, but Bruno, as long as you dare to disagree, they are not your friends. They like you more than most because you will turn on a fellow conservative at the drop of a hat, not because you are nice to them. This is about politics, not about friends. You got a nice sour taste of it last week, but I’m sure that you will keep trying.
Keep doing your thing and i’ll keep doing my thing, and if you feel that slamming me a little will give you some “libby-cred”, knock yourself out. This blog, while entertaining and sometimes informative, is not the most important thing in my life.
By USinUK
November 18, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this
Bruno -
As for paying a million to live somewhere, would your hubby be open to an Indecent Proposal? I would consider that to be a bargain
what’s that nickname of yours again … Doug? Dig? Dag? ;-)
By Sunshine
November 18, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this
Hi USinUK!
My question is this: Why does it have to be a hen house? We are much more colorful than that! How about the Scarlet Macaw Perch? Much more fitting! ;-)
By Fandalf, the White!
November 18, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this
Billy go change a diaper or something you girly man! Sunshine good to hear we won’t be hearing your drivel today!
More Lies from Obama? Looks pretty much BAU in Washington with his picks.
The SA or Brownshirts were the civilian force that the german guy created that helped get him elected, the SS came later.
By USinUK
November 18, 2008 10:00 AM | Link to this
Sunshine -
Why does it have to be a hen house?
I just figured it was because his p3cker is smaller than ours …
… or maybe because we get laid more often …
:-D
By Gale
November 18, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this
after a day of civil discussion, TOJ? We seem to remember the discussion differently. But ok, have it your way. I attacked you.
Fandalf, good to see you. I was wondering where you were keeping yourself. The civil force being proposed does sound entirely too much like Brownshirts. That’s all we need. A bunch of folks running about with psuedo-authority like the TSA troops.
By The Other Jack
November 18, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
USinUK
currently, we stand at about $800 billion.
Yesterday, I was trying to find anything that stated where the money was going and I kept running into a couple of sites that had a running total of the cost and it was between 500-600 billion with some sources saying that the total was, as you said, going to be a trillion and a half. Whatever, it’s more money that I can pretend to conceive.
and let’s look at what’s been done with that money: (Saving space, but you know what you wrote.
Agreed. I’m just impressed that you found any numbers. All I found was the same old “Eeeeevil Republican war, costing us our economy” stories.
Okay. So. Let’s assume that the estimates that the government will need to spend $1 Trillion to replace the helicopters/tanks/guns, etc are true - and that money manages to stay in the US. First of all, those items are not going to be replaced all at once. Secondly, it’s not going to create that many jobs - $5 million spent on a plane does not create as many jobs as $5 million spent on roads or public infrastructure does or education or health care.
First, a modern fighter jet cost a hell of a lot more than 5 mil. Hell, a new Lear cost about 10. I believe a new B-2 is right at a cool billion. An F-22 is 138 million. (looked that up this morning). I’m not sure that fixing a bridge will employ as many people as building an F-22 and the jobs are much more high paying and employ more educated people and advance technology in building an airplane.
But that’s not really the point. Everything you said is absolutely true as far as the lost man-hours, the lost brothers, fathers, sisters and mothers. War is a horrible thing. But here’s the point I am trying to make. Everything you said would also apply toward WWII. For the life of me, no matter how hard I try, I cannot find any difference in the economic impact of the two wars. But history tells us that WWII brought us out of the depression. But we have been told since 2003 that the iraq war was killing our economy. Never told how or why, just told about all the money being spent “in” Iraq.
So you have one situation where it was truly not a matter of propaganda to tell the country that the war was helping us (WWII), because history has proven that while the war screwed up a lot of good men and killed so many more, it did give a huge boost to an almost non-existent economy. That is not propaganda. That is not biased news. That is a history proven fact.
But now, while we have the same situation, where yes, some of the money is flushed, the vast majority of it, just like WWII, is going directly back into the economy. But the media, especially the mainstream, overtly liberal leaning news does not tell us that fact. They tell us that the war is killing our economy, something that neither you or I have been able to substantiate. It isn’t killing the economy and it has never been killing our economy. It has been and will continue to help our economy.
I keep harping on the media and this is why. You are being lied to. The facts aren’t twisted, they are thrown out the window and replaced with whatever political mantra the media is feeding us on that particular day.
You just saw an election where the vast majority of people could not recognize Nancy Pelosi while immediately recognizing Judge Judy. This tells me that the media is INCREDIBLY powerful. And your party uses that media, sometimes for good, such as a lot of the green initiatives, but many times for very bad purposes, such as massively influencing national presidential elections. I know a lot of media types. Basically, they are good people, but they definitely should not have the power to steer this country’s future.
By Gale
November 18, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
USinUK, now you are just winding him up. Maybe that is a good strategy, we apparently cannot calm him.
By The Other Jack
November 18, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this
Gale
Cackle, cackle, cackle.
Yea, I see why you were so offended by the henhouse statement.
By USinUK
November 18, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this
TOJ - (answers in random order)
Whatever, it’s more money that I can pretend to conceive. I think it falls under the “sh!tload” category.
For the life of me, no matter how hard I try, I cannot find any difference in the economic impact of the two wars. But history tells us that WWII brought us out of the depression. But we have been told since 2003 that the iraq war was killing our economy. Never told how or why, just told about all the money being spent “in” Iraq.
two huge differences between WWII and Iraq: 1) troop size - WWII saw 16 MILLION men and women serve. In other words, unemployment went from 13.something% in 1940 to nothing because every able-bodied man either enlisted or was drafted. The economy was so depleted of a workforce, women had to go fill in these roles.
That simply isn’t the case currently - roughly 200K troops are currently deployed in Iraq and those men are career military, not drafted from civilian life - so the impact on the civilian workforce is nowhere near the same. Also, the US is a service economy, not the same manufacturing economy we were in the 1940s, so you don’t see Macy’s or Applebees or Circuit City retooling to serve the war effort.
First, a modern fighter jet cost a hell of a lot more than 5 mil. Hell, a new Lear cost about 10. I believe a new B-2 is right at a cool billion. An F-22 is 138 million. (looked that up this morning). I’m not sure that fixing a bridge will employ as many people as building an F-22 and the jobs are much more high paying and employ more educated people and advance technology in building an airplane.
I was trying to be conservative - but, the fact is, by pumping up the price of an F-22 or Chinook or even a Humvee, you’re just amplifying my point. That’s that much more money going into 1 item - as opposed to $140 million going into replacing bridges, building schools, etc …
You just saw an election where the vast majority of people could not recognize Nancy Pelosi while immediately recognizing Judge Judy.
you keep using that example. first of all - according to you, that scenario came from Howard Stern. not exactly first in line for a Pulitzer when it comes to political reporting, is he?? just like the “man on the street” interviews that Leno does, it’s meant to be a joke, not on par with a Gallup survey. Secondly, who cares if no one can pick Nancy Pelosi out in a lineup - no one gets a vote on her except for the folks in her district, so who the flip cares if they can pick her out in a crowd of one???
This tells me that the media is INCREDIBLY powerful
ummm … ???? that statement completely negates what you just said. if the media was soooooooooo incredibly liberal and soooooooooo incredibly pro-Dem, then every man woman and child should be able to recognize her.
it did give a huge boost to an almost non-existent economy
last point - and I apologize for skipping around - but, unemployment had already dropped from a high of 25% to, as I stated above, 13% in 1940. GNP had also improved 34% by 1936 and 58% by 1940 - so, the economy was NOT non-existent. (http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/ EconomichistoryoftheUnitedStates#GreatDepression:1929.E2.80.931941) … just a fyi
By The Other Jack
November 18, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Yep, you are definitely getting laid more than me. That’s just something that I don’t want to deal with right now.
I have to get to work.
Via Con Dios.
By Dr. Siggie H. Freud
November 18, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this
Admit your culpability in what happened, and maybe you can start to heal. Blaming everyone else for all these years is not helping. Look in the mirror. Your actions and words preceded the tragedy. Your words and actions had the weight you falsely assign to strangers.
By Frustrated
November 18, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
So I read yahoo news…. Apparently Obama is revitalizing the search for Osama?
By USinUK
November 18, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
I meant to ask earlier … I saw from the AJC forecast that the cold is setting in - did you get your central heat fixed???
By Mara
November 18, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this
LOL! Y’all should check out “Margaret and Helen” today. Hilarious.
By OnlyFair
November 18, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this
Let’s all remember 46% of Americans voted against the democrats. The Republicans should return the favor and be just as mean, nasty and uncooperative with the Dems as they have been over the last 8 years. The Dems will implode soon enough anyway, Obama was merely their figure head to get back into office, they will soon tire of him because he must be everyone’s president, not just the liberals. Andrea, you’ve earned nothing!
By Mara
November 18, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this
Sheesh…
Holick told KSNW, “The main point of the marquee is to cause the Christians to understand he is not a Christian, Again, they will call me and they will tell me that he’s not a Muslim because he is a Christian. That’s not the point. The point is he’s not a Christian.”
OnlyFair - The Republicans should return the favor and be just as mean, nasty and uncooperative with the Dems as they have been over the last 8 years
oh, please…DO! I’m sure that when the 2010 elections roll around the electorate will reward you… LOL!!
By Lyrazel
November 18, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this
The Republicans should return the favor and be just as mean, nasty and uncooperative with the Dems as they have been over the last 8 years
Ah, selective nostalgia! How sweet it was 9 years ago when everyone in politics sang happy songs and bought each other a Pepsi, don’t you remember? Where did these mean, nasty and uncooperative democrat invaders come from? Maybe they are voted in by mean, nasty and uncooperative constituents? Meanies!
By USinUK
November 18, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this
Mara -
Holick told KSNW, “The main point of the marquee is to cause the Christians to understand he is not a Christian, Again, they will call me and they will tell me that he’s not a Muslim because he is a Christian. That’s not the point. The point is he’s not a Christian.”
and people wonder why I don’t believe in religion … criminey, what a brain trust …
By Sunshine
November 18, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this
The memory hole is a funny thing isn’t it? Remember about 9 years ago when the Republican mob impeached the president? I am not saying Pres. Clinton was lily white but the sheer hatred and “we will take him down at any cost” mentality was unreal. Here is the current president, who lied about the reasons for going to war, lied about torturing prisoners, violated the Geneva Convention, and countless other atrocities that we probably don’t even know about, and the Democrats have, as a group, decided that to prosecute our president is too divisive to the country. But the Democrats are the big meanies! I think the Democratic elected officials have shown true restraint in the face of all the crimes the Bush administration has committed.
By USinUK
November 18, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this
Mara -
LOL! Y’all should check out “Margaret and Helen” today. Hilarious.
thank god I didn’t read that at work - I actually snorted laughing …
my, but Molly I would have loved them …
By Gale
November 18, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this
Mara, do you suppose The Spirit One Christian Center would react badly if their tax exempt status was revoked?
Regarding the comment by OnlyFair, let us remember that a small majority does not constitute a mandate from the people, however much the winning party may like to make it so. We have not seen a large majority win for many years.
By USinUK
November 18, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this
Poor TOJ - wrong yet again …
Senator Harry Reid just spoke to reporters after the private caucus meeting with Dems over Joe Lieberman’s fate, and he confirmed it: Lieberman will not be stripped of his Homeland Security chairmanship, because the “vast majority” of the Democratic caucus wants him to stay.
“This was not a time for retribution,” Reid said, adding that “we’re moving forward.”
Lieberman was removed from the Environment and Public Works Committee, a largely meaningless punishment since it’s a topic (unlike Homeland Security) on which he has no differences with Dems.
Asked about liberal “anger” towards Lieberman, Reid said: “I pretty well understand anger. I would defy anyone to be more angry than I was.”
But he added: “If you will look at the problems that we face as a nation, is this a time we walk out of here saying boy did we get even?”
“I feel good about what we did today,” Reid said. “We’re moving forward.”
whoooooooboyhowdy, that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi - they sure are MEAN aren’t they … jackbooted thugs, making Lieberman keep his chairmanship and all …
as for me, I can’t wait to vote the effing wanker out of office in two years (sometimes, having the right to vote in CT pays dividends)
By USinUK
November 18, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this
Gale -
Mara, do you suppose The Spirit One Christian Center would react badly if their tax exempt status was revoked?
forget them - they’re small potatoes … I say, for their work on Proposition 8, the IRS should take those Mormon effers DOWN.
but, that’s just me. YMMV.
By Nonnie
November 18, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this
We Republicans should give the new president-elect the same support and respect the liberal democrats have given Pres Bush.
By Mara
November 18, 2008 2:28 PM | Link to this
USinUK - I actually snorted laughing…
Bet it was at the “a—hat” comment — :^)
jackbooted thugs, making Lieberman keep his chairmanship and all…
good one! LOL…
Gale, USinUK - …they will call me and they will tell me that he’s not a Muslim because he is a Christian. That’s not the point. The point is he’s not a Christian.
At least there were honest folk who really did try to set the man straight. It’s not their fault that this guy has appointed himself the judge of who is a Christian, and who *isn’t one. It does make me wonder what you have to do to be considered a Christian in Kansas. It’s probably a lot like being a conservative in todays GOP.
By USinUK
November 18, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this
Nonnie - (et al)
We Republicans should give the new president-elect the same support and respect the liberal democrats have given Pres Bush.
26% approval rating.
twenty. six.
in other words, 74% of the US thinks he sucks - not all of those people are Dems.
as far as the Dems being mean … I’d like to second Sunshine’s post above - you guys should be glad W isn’t being frog-marched to the Hague like he deserves.
By USinUK
November 18, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this
Mara -
Bet it was at the “a—hat” comment
it was that and the “pipeline to jesus” comment …
I want to be jsut like them when I grow up!!!
By Mara
November 18, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this
Nonnie - We Republicans should give the new president-elect the same support and respect the liberal democrats have given Pres Bush.
three little changes and - VOILA - t!t, meet tat…”We Democrats should give the new president-elect the same support and respect the conservative republicans have given Pres Clinton.”
By Gale
November 18, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this
The misister in Kansas probably got there in the backwash from the rainbow. He is really a Munchkin.
By Gale
November 18, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this
ow. misister should be minister.
By Mara
November 18, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this
Gale - …in the backwash from the rainbow
LOL! okay…I read “backwash from the rainbow” and instantly my internal jukebox began playing Kermit singing “Rainbow Connection”.
Have you been half asleep
and have you heard voices?
I’ve heard them calling my name.
Is this the sweet sound that calls the young sailors?
The voice might be one and the same.
I’ve heard it too many times to ignore it.
It’s something that I’m supposed to be.
Someday we’ll find it, the rainbow connection,
the lovers, the dreamers and me.
La, la la, La, la la la, La Laa, la la, La, La la laaaaaaa
<< hugs to my blog buddies >> see y’all tomorrow -
By Fandalf, the White!
November 18, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this
Mysister in Kansas is in charge of the Tornado machines. She hates munchkins and muslims and stupid Christian wanna ministers. That’s why they all end up in Witchita!
By Fandalf, the White!
November 18, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this
Mysister in Kansas is in charge of the Tornado machines. She hates munchkins and muslims and stupid Christian wanna ministers. That’s why they all end up in Witchita!
By Gale
November 18, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this
So perfect to see your post after Kermit’s song, Fandalf.
By The Other Jack
November 18, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this
USinUK
So what was “poor” TOJ wrong about?
this is what I wrote:
The board’s response to the Lieberman issue say that liberals will not tolerate opposing views. If you dare to disagree, you should lose your career, your life.
And you just wrote: as for me, I can’t wait to vote the effing wanker out of office in two years (sometimes, having the right to vote in CT pays dividends)
I was right and you proved me right. If you think the dims are “allowing” Lieberman to stay on the committee for any other reason than he is needed to get that magic 60/40 split, you are not paying attention.
As far as your post this morning, you still haven’t addressed the fact that the media has been lying. You were right that this war did not employ as many people or build as many vehicles, but we have spent more money on fewer vehicles and airplanes than was spent in WWII. That money has gone back into the economy, something that the media has lied about since day one.
Most bridges and infrastructure problems are state and local, not federal. And the fact remains that building B-2s and humvees put skilled craftsmen to work and most construction workers are not highly skilled. I would suggest pulling money from pork instead of National Security to fix the bridges.
Yes, it is important that Americans know who the leader of the dominating party in Congress looks like, what she acts like and as much about her as possible. The liberal media would be showing her off if she wasn’t an eye batting half wit. The example did not come from Howard Stern. I am not a fan. The example came from Ben Stein.
However, the bottom line is that I, a Republican want everyone to know everything about the leaders of our country. You, as a Democrats do not think it is important that the general population should know about our leaders. I am for a well informed, well educated populace. Apparently you want people to vote based on what they are told on Comedy Central. You win. The voting public is ignorant. Thus, met Barrack Obama, next president of the USA.
As far as my heat and my peck^r, they are both fine. As to the size: (You brought it up) always been an advantage, but I’m not John Holmes, , So when I am in the market again, I will not be looking for a sloppy sink hole, but an in-shape woman who inspires and loves to be inspired. I’m been playing music both in and out of the bedroom since I was 14. Never underestimate the hands of a piano player. Women who need more can always visit a nice stable.
By JokesOn
November 18, 2008 4:32 PM | Link to this
Busy as heck.
Hope all is well with everyone.
No problem. If it’s any consolation to you, I tried to raise the same argument several weeks ago that war = jobs, but didn’t get any agreement at that time either. If your goal in coming here is to get acknowledgement that your arguments are right, you’re going to remain “Frustrated”. That’s just how it is on W2W.
Sorry dog, but I rarely see either you or Da’ Troof post proof or a link to back up your positions. The times tha Da’ Troof did, his links proved what we were saying.
And to say your postings are sometimes “banter” as a way of excusing yourself of telling the whole truth is unfortunate. Maybe you should put that up-front and center in your posts that are purely banter so that we do not waste time seriously debating them.
As for convincing Troof of who I am, don’t bother. It is his shtick - something to call foul about. God knows he needs to blame something/someone for his miserable self!
BTW Troof, Unlike Sunshine, I have no sympathy for your pity party made-up stories. You should stop lying about such serious stuff. It debases the actual difficulties real people face.
By The Other Jack
November 18, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this
Joke
Go f*ck yourself. You are an idiot and a coward. Missed you and sunshine and all of the other sideline snipers yesterday, but here you all are together again. Say it ain’t so.
Anytime you want to discuss this like a man, let me know. Until then just keep hiding. We could do it tonight, but let me guess, you are in Cancun fishing during a hurricane again.
What an idiot.
By Gale
November 19, 2008 8:20 AM | Link to this
Sometimes I think it would be fun to develop a fictional persona for the purpose of rattling TOJ’s chains. But it is really too much trouble. Anyone who reads much fiction would have recognized that men have a very hard time writing believable women and women have the same problem writing believable men. Oh, you can believe the side characters. But if the protagonist is the opposite sex of the writer, the character rings false to someone of that sex. I hope I made that clear. There is a deep level of experience that makes each sex behave as they do. It comes out in communication styles. Sunshine, if TOJ is right and you are some stalking male on board for the sole purpose of taunting and hurting him, you are an excellent writer and you have convinced me utterly that you are a woman.
By Gale
November 19, 2008 8:45 AM | Link to this
USinUK, does your company give you Thanksgiving day off? All the articles about food made me think of you over there in the mother country. Do you make the Mr eat turkey?
By Fandalf, the White!
November 19, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this
TURKEY DAY ABROAD! Once in Germany we had 3 german couples over for the feast of Thanksgiving. They ate ever morsel of food we made, 20 LB bird reduced to less than a soup carcass! Them germans can eat!
By Gale
November 19, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this
A vegetarian friend once told me how the Germans in WWII freaked because they could not feed him meat no matter how much they tried.
By USinUK
November 19, 2008 9:15 AM | Link to this
Gale -
USinUK, does your company give you Thanksgiving day off? All the articles about food made me think of you over there in the mother country. Do you make the Mr eat turkey?
if I wanted to take holiday time off, I could, but, no, the company doesn’t give the UK office time off for Thanksgiving. besides, turkeys don’t really go on sale here until December, anyway (you can get a turkey breast, but whole turkeys are pretty much just for Christmas dinner) … I do miss the whole thanksgiving dinner, hanging out with my friends, turkey and dressing sammiches the next day … yumyumyum!!!
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this
Gale
Good for you. And yes, it is obviously a complete impossibility that any man could ever fool you.
Men.
They are the worst.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 19, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this
TOJ, at least the Eldest of Eight Graders has been an idiot since he flunked out of Pre-K and was held back. I try to ignore the [DUMBASS!] when I can, but he is an irratating POS, isn’t he! He has the writing skills of a donkey (or Jack {A*}!) Have a great day!
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this
Gandalf
You will get a kick out of this: Go to Utube and type in howobamagotelected in the search engine.
The film maker has obviously been reading my mail.
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this
Gandalf
Go to the actual documentary, not the piece on Hannity and Colmes.
Love the question: Who has control of Congress?
By Lyrazel
November 19, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
…damn he’s not John Holmes…well there goes the bloggettes fantasy picks…LOL
Actually it was John Madden who gave me the best advice for choosing a good man: “All he needs is a good tight end with a great pair of hands.”
By Monica
November 19, 2008 9:33 AM | Link to this
Them germans can eat! Well, that expains a lot! With German ancestry and deep Southern roots, no wonder I’m addicted to food. :)
By Gale
November 19, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this
TOJ, I don’t say it cannot be done; just that it is difficult. Over a few posts, perhaps. But Sunshine has posted a lot and that makes a fiction less believable. Have you tried making readers believe you are a woman? Try it and see how long you can keep it flying.
By USinUK
November 19, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
THIS is what I was talking about: Pelosi/Reid/Obama. Better march the goose step or pack your bags. folks here on the blog are allowed whatever opinion we want - and can vote accordingly. you asserted that pelosi/reid/obama expect people to snap in line or be dismissed - which clearly wasn’t the case.
If you think the dims are “allowing” Lieberman to stay on the committee for any other reason than he is needed to get that magic 60/40 split, you are not paying attention. I totally agree with you - but so what? they still allowed him to stay. that’s hardly what I would call “goose stepping” him out of the joint.
As far as your post this morning, you still haven’t addressed the fact that the media has been lying. You were right that this war did not employ as many people or build as many vehicles, but we have spent more money on fewer vehicles and airplanes than was spent in WWII. wrong yet again … according to CNBC, in today’s dollars WWII cost $3.6 trillion - more than twice the cost of Iraq. so, what has the media lied about?
I will stipulate that unemployment went down between 2003 and 2006, when it started to rise again - but the primary employers were in construction and the housing industry (real estate, furniture, retail like Home Depot, etc), not in the defense industry.
Most bridges and infrastructure problems are state and local, not federal. And the fact remains that building B-2s and humvees put skilled craftsmen to work and most construction workers are not highly skilled. I would suggest pulling money from pork instead of National Security to fix the bridges.
interstates are federal and major interestate bridges are federal, not state. as far as construction workers not being highly skilled, I disagree when it comes to ironworkers, but either way, they still get paid well and they still spend it - and that’s what drives our economy - consumers (70% of GDP). Employ MORE people, you get stronger expansion.
as for pulling it from pork rather than National Security - do you honestly think there’s no pork and padding in the Defense budget??? criminey, now who’s being naive??
Yes, it is important that Americans know who the leader of the dominating party in Congress looks like, what she acts like and as much about her as possible. The liberal media would be showing her off if she wasn’t an eye batting half wit.
what - you think they’re hiding her??? omg, that’s a laugh-flippin-riot … when you do a search for Nancy Pelosi on WaPo, you get 315 results:
http://www. washingtonpost. com/ac2/ wp-dyn/NewsSearch?sb=-1&st=nancy%20pelosi&
on CNN, they don’t number, but you get at least 10 pages of story links
http:// search.cnn.com/ search.jsp?query=nancy%20pelosi&type=news&sortBy=date&intl=true
on FOX, you get 1150 stories
heck, even the AJC has written 200 stories about or that include her:
http://www. ajc.com/ search/search/ search/UnifiedSearch?query=nancy+pelosi&collection=site
The example did not come from Howard Stern. I am not a fan. The example came from Ben Stein.
funny, I tried 4 google searches of Ben Stein, survey, Pelosi - couldn’t find anything … would you perhaps have a link to support your claim???
However, the bottom line is that I, a Republican want everyone to know everything about the leaders of our country. You, as a Democrats do not think it is important that the general population should know about our leaders. I am for a well informed, well educated populace. Apparently you want people to vote based on what they are told on Comedy Central. You win. The voting public is ignorant. Thus, met Barrack Obama, next president of the USA.
ah, yes - you, as a Republican, are so morally superior to we immoral, want-everyone-to-wallow-in-their-own-stupidity Democrats … get knotted. I’d love everyone to know who the Speaker is, what the Majority Whip does, know all the Supreme Court Justices and understand how a bill becomes a law. but, you know what? THEY DON’T and most people never will. In fact, I’d hazard a guess that a majority of people don’t know the difference between their state rep and their congressman. Would I like them to? of course - I’d love a perfectly educated, informed and involved electorate … but it’s never going to happen because many people just. don’t. care. about politics because they don’t think it has an effect on their lives.
I don’t want people to vote based on what they see on comedy central any more than I want them to vote based on what they hear on Rush - I’d love for people to do their research - read - go to speeches, etc. but, again, they won’t. at the end of the day, the people who need to know who Pelosi is are the people who vote her into office.
glad to hear you got your heat sorted before the cold snap.
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
Gale
I rarely have the time to just blog. I could be wrong about Sunshine. You are right in that the performance is way beyond joke’s little characters of HeeHaw and Dr. Siggie H. Freud, but the fact that she showed up with guns a’blazin with her friends and enemies already selected, knowing way too much about everyone and knowing in great detail about events that happened to me 26 years ago usualy means that the new blogger is not new at all.
I have blogged since 1993. I have never known of anyone studying the characters on a blog for weeks on end before finally showing up. There are several other reasons which i have not mentioned. One of those is attendance. Joke sometimes can’t post. Work or whatever, but there are days like Monday when he simply isn’t here. On those days there are never any of the sideline snipers like HeeHaw. But strangely enough, Sunshine is never here on those days, either. And it’s not just last Monday. I have noted it many times before. Needless to say, since I am now posting this, expect to see many “All Sunshine, All Day” or “All jokesOn All Day” from now on.
I could go back and do an actual comparison, but Gale, I just don’t care that much. I am dealing with this like any person should deal with any troll. Unless Joke directly addresses me in a post, he is ignored. All his sideline snipers are always ignored and Sunshine is also ignored. If Sunshine is Joke, and he is being ignored, he will go away.
(You may notice that Sunshine, Joke or any of the sideline snipers are not here yet today. In it’s self, means nothing. But it has been a definate pattern.)
By Mara
November 19, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this
I’d love a perfectly educated, informed and involved electorate … but it’s never going to happen because many people just. don’t. care. about politics because they don’t think it has an effect on their lives.
Hear, Hear!! I cringe everytime they do those “man on the street” interviews.
BTW, a Texas Grand Jury has handed down an indictment for D!ck Cheney and Alberto Gonzalez. Cheney is charged with engaging in an organized criminal activity related to his investment in the Vanguard Group, which holds financial interests in the private prison companies running the federal detention centers. Cheney is also accused of a conflict of interest and misdemeanor assaults on detainees through his link to the prison company.
Gonzalas is accused of using his position while in office to stop an investigation in 2006 into abuses at one of the privately-run prisons. (Gonzalez playing politics with law enforcement? And protecting D!ck Cheney?! You don’t say…)
By Snipey Doo
November 19, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this
You wish! I’m sure I’m not the only one who has avoided commenting here lately because YOU ARE BORING US TO DEATH. Somebody give us a jingle when Mr. Angry Testosterone takes his meds and calms down a bit. The world does not revolve around your anger and frankly, who gives a damn? Dr. Freud is right. Look in the mirror and behold the face of your true enemy.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 19, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this
EXPAT: I thought Brits ate Goose for Christmas, that Dickens guy must have it all wrong. Next we’ll find out Tiny Tim was really a tri-athlete and skinny from so much training…Tip toe through the tulips. Liz Hurley is the best import, well, next to Bass. We’ll if your British friends wouldn’t have sent them 3 Patriot ships, the Gremlin, the Pinto and the Chevette over full of Mormons, we wouldn’t have Thanksgiving either. Thanks goodness for John Phillip Souza and Miles Davis for running the show when the got here. I for one am glad the Indian Casino’s were open on Thanksgiving for the Pilgrims to go and setup a ballroom for the Feast. What is that most famous of Black Jack Dealer / waitresses name? Pocahontas!
By USinUK
November 19, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this
Mara -
Hear, Hear!! I cringe everytime they do those “man on the street” interviews.
not to mention, I’m sure TOJ was perfectly happy that many people voted for W because he was someone they would like to have a beer with … foreign policy? who cares … he’d be fun at a bbq …
sheesh …
By Sunshine
November 19, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this
LOL!! Ok too funny! Hold on a second, I need to stop laughing!
You win. The voting public is ignorant. Thus, met Barrack Obama, next president of the USA.
You mean GW Bush right? You mean the “I can’t string a coherent sentence together, have the vocabulary of a 4th grader, had to have my daddy pull strings so I could squeak by and finally graduate college at the bottom of my class, never succeeded at anything before in my life, beer drinking redneck, hehe were gonna get ‘em, if you’re not for us you’re against us, deer in the headlights, children’s book reading in the middle the largest national crisis of this century, worst president EVER”, right?
Or, are you so delusional, that electing a top of his class, first black president of the Harvard Law Review, constitutional lawyer that has sky rocked in every endeavor he set out to achieve, who ran one of the most controlled and well run campaigns in the history of politics, the guy with the calm demeanor and with the steady, well thought out answers to global issues was the DUMB choice?
Ok that was just too funny, thanks, that was GREAT!!!
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Girl, i just can’t do this today. I am slammed. you win. the media never lies and the war, for the first time in history hurt our economy instead of helping it. Whatever. I really appreciate you taking the time and i read every word, As always, you make some good points. I just can’t take the time to respond.
glad to hear you got your heat sorted before the cold snap.
$7,800 for two complete units. I could have made a down payment on a house in South Florida, not to mention that there will be no new HD Camera this year. I need to get a commercial ready to upload to a distribution company in New York. I hate these guys. They insist that an mpeg-2 is state of the art and I haven’t had a conversion program in years that will convert to that format. I never compress my video, except for the internet and I use mpeg-4 compression for that. New Yorkers. I just want to smack the crap out of them.
By Gale
November 19, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this
TOJ, that is showing some sense. Personally, I don’t find it odd that a personal comment about abortion would stick in the mind of a pregnant woman.
Whoa, Mara, you don’t say? Before he is even out of office? I wonder if there has been protection at several levels as long as the repubs were in charge. Ugly business.
By USinUK
November 19, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
Fandalf -
haha - TinyTim the Triathlete … now, that would make a good sequel.
I’m sure some Brits do goose for christmas - not my in-laws, though. they’re all about the turkey. me, I’d prefer a nice roast beast with yorkshire puddings (yumyumYUM!!!). honestly, you don’t know good eats until you sop up some gravy with yorkies (it’s right up there with sausage and biscuits!)
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this
USinUK
not to mention, I’m sure TOJ was perfectly happy that many people voted for W because he was someone they would like to have a beer with … foreign policy? who cares … he’d be fun at a bbq …
Bite me. And you wonder why I say that this place has become a hen house. And BTW, I rarely drink beer. I drink Scotch. But since you brought it up, I have said since 1993 that I would love to go skirt chasing with Bill Clinton. You remember Bill Clinton, the man that is so sleezy that his lack of character might possibly cost his wife the job of Secretary of State. but i’ll bet we could land some very fine women. Hopefully a lot finer than the porker that he was boinking in the oval office. You must be soooo proud.
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this
Gale
Sideline sniper (Snipey Doo) shows up. Three posts later, there’s Sunshine. Happens every time.
By Sunshine
November 19, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this
Geez louise TOJ! I go away for a few days and I get more attention that when I spend hours researching links and points! Give it up, I am not JokesOn, I came on the week that our firewall at work was changed and the week that the topic was about Sarah Palin, who, AS A WOMAN! I couldn’t stand. I thought she was a terrible pick (and still do) and all my first posts were about that, AND AGAIN FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! people read and don’t post, I read almost every week and have been for sometime between a year to two. Get over it, two people here share similar view points, move on with your life buddy!
/end rant!
By Bruce becker
November 19, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this
Saxby Chambliss has already said he has no intention of allowing Obama to do his best to correct the mistakes of the GOP.
VOTE Martin for a real change.
Saxby’s entire program is to talk in the Senate and run out the clock.
We cannot afford to have a person in the Senate who will not allow any change.
Things are NOT ok, just the way they are, even though apparently Chambliss thinks so.
By Gale
November 19, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this
USinUK, what is it with Brits calling everything pudding? This ‘Merican gets real confused with a comment about sopping anything with pudding. :-)
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
Gale
TOJ, that is showing some sense. Personally, I don’t find it odd that a personal comment about abortion would stick in the mind of a pregnant woman.
I definitely agree with that. What I wonder about is why would that woman be so interested in a blog that she couldn’t respond to for weeks before she can respond. And again, if you are that interested, go back and take a look at every morning that Sunshine shows up. It is almost every time that if I am here, a sniper will appear, slamming me and then a few posts later, there’s Sunshine. Happened this morning. If Sunshine is here, there are sideline snipers and Joke usually appears eventually. If Joke and the snipers are gone, Sunshine is gone. Up to now (this will now be changed, I’m sure), that has almost always been the case. At least that is what I have noticed. Doing the research to make sure it is accurate? I just don’t care enough.
Joke and Sunshine both love to talk about how they are laughing so hard that their side is splitting (or similar expressions). That pretty much negates me addressing her posts, anyway.
I have GOT to up load these stinking files. Ya’ll have a good day.
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this
bruce Becker
Give the eye batting half wit and dirty Harry Ried unquestioned control of our government and I will promise that you will definitely see some changes. Let the Unions start running our country. After the unions distroyed the rust belt states people could leave and move to non-union states. Where will the entire country move?
By Sunshine
November 19, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this
WOW is it Christmas already?
BTW, a Texas Grand Jury has handed down an indictment for D!ck Cheney and Alberto Gonzalez. Cheney is charged with engaging in an organized criminal activity related to his investment in the Vanguard Group, which holds financial interests in the private prison companies running the federal detention centers. Cheney is also accused of a conflict of interest and misdemeanor assaults on detainees through his link to the prison company.
Gonzalas is accused of using his position while in office to stop an investigation in 2006 into abuses at one of the privately-run prisons.
AND…
Ted Stevens loses his seat, 58 and counting!
The world, or our county, is finally coming to its senses after the long dark and scary night!
By Paranoia The Destroya
November 19, 2008 11:53 AM | Link to this
There’s a red under my bed. There’s a little yellow man in my head.
By Sunshine
November 19, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this
OK, I swear this is the last thing I will say about it because the WHOLE thing is ridiculous! I am a girl, and I will not let you do a body cavity search but since we are in cyperspace: frisk me baby! And TOJ, you are worse than my mother, boss and a controlling boyfriend all rolled into one about my whereabouts. As I have stated, I have two jobs, I leave this job (that I CAN NOW post at) and go to the other about 3:30. I don’t post there b/c its a new job ect. Today I had a training seminar to go to from 8-10:30am that is why I posted after that, I didn’t even see all the love you gave me till after I read your unbelievable thing about “people are dumb that’s why they elected Pres. Obama (again its funny because for once we DIDN’T elect the dumb guy for the bottom of his class)”. Happy? I don’t ever post under another name b/c what is the point? I don’t know these people, who cares what they think of me really, if I want to say something I say it under my one handle (god, if my husband gave me this much grief about where I am and what I am doing I would be single!) You attacked me from day one on here, I think I said something the first week about not taking water from you if I was on fire, I didn’t bring up your, now obvious, neurosis b/c you didn’t single me out as the Abortion Queen until later! Again, you really make me worry about you dude. You have issues, major issues. You say that this blog isn’t important to you but that is an obvious lie. You should gets some friends, or a girl friend, move on, 26 years is a HELL of a long time to hold on so tight to this stuff. You are old enough to be my dad, be the grown up, LET. IT. GO.
By Bruno
November 19, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this
whoooooooboyhowdy, that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi - they sure are MEAN aren’t they … jackbooted thugs, making Lieberman keep his chairmanship and all …
If you think the dims are “allowing” Lieberman to stay on the committee for any other reason than he is needed to get that magic 60/40 split, you are not paying attention.
I totally agree with you - but so what? they still allowed him to stay. that’s hardly what I would call “goose stepping” him out of the joint.
USinUK—I appreciate your simple acknowledgement as to the real reason Lieberman wasn’t kicked out of the Democratic Party. It has nothing to do with “being nice” and everything to do with power.
But the Democrats are the big meanies! I think the Democratic elected officials have shown true restraint in the face of all the crimes the Bush administration has committed.
as far as the Dems being mean … I’d like to second Sunshine’s post above - you guys should be glad W isn’t being frog-marched to the Hague like he deserves.
Again, ladies, please spare me the “being nice” argument as to why Bush has never been charged with any wrongdoing. Following the Clinton impeachment, the Democrats have been salivating to find something, anything to charge Bush with. While you may privately believed that “Bush lied” regarding the Iraq War, there is no hard evidence to prove that. The fact remains that Saddam Hussein blocked the inspection of his nuclear facilities while the UN issued proclamation after proclamation. Maybe you were comfortable in trusting Saddam, but I, along with the 2001-2002 Congress, weren’t and thus voted to go to war. Ditto for the Patriot Act. As much as I don’t like the circumvention of our Constitutional protections against “unreasonable search and seizure”, the 2001 Congress voted overwhelmingly to pass the bill. Again, you are welcome to hold your private opinions about Bush, but he has acted within the scope of the law. If any hard evidence ever surfaces to the contrary, then I will agree with you.
By USinUK
November 19, 2008 12:31 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
you win. the media never lies and the war, for the first time in history hurt our economy instead of helping it. Whatever. I really appreciate you taking the time and i read every word, As always, you make some good points. I just can’t take the time to respond.
I keep asking you what they LIED about cuz I really don’t get it. and, yes, the war has hurt the economy - our national deficit has skyrocketed (even before the bailout program) http:// zfacts.com/ p/519.html
we’ve seen a net job loss, other than the 20-someodd moths of job growth due to the housing market, we’ve seen growing unemployment during the war.
again, this is not the same economy that we had in the 1940s, which was much more based on exports and manufacturing. we now live in a service economy based on consumer spending - wars don’t grow that kind of economy unless a significant number of people are employed in the defense industry - and that ain’t happening.
$7,800 for two complete units. I could have made a down payment on a house in South Florida, not to mention that there will be no new HD Camera this year
dude. that sucks. I’m sorry to hear that - especially right before the holidays. does it at least fix your a/c problem, as well???
Bite me. And you wonder why I say that this place has become a hen house. And BTW, I rarely drink beer. I drink Scotch.
sorry, bubba, but you can’t have it both ways, saying that Dems voted for Obama because they’re stupid when there were people who voted for Bush because they thought he was the kind of guy they would like to have a beer with. sadly, stupid is universal.
Hopefully a lot finer than the porker that he was boinking in the oval office. You must be soooo proud.
sometimes you go with the President you have rather than the President you wish you had … either way, if I had my choice I’d still take another 8 years of BC - interns and all - than what we’ve had Bush the Lesser.
By Bruno
November 19, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this
Sorry dog, but I rarely see either you or Da’ Troof post proof or a link to back up your positions. The times tha Da’ Troof did, his links proved what we were saying.
JokesOn—Other than USinUK, almost no one posts links to bolster their positions, including you. But, I’ll tell you what: If you find my posts to be of no value, then do yourself—and me—a favor and just skip them over. This is an opinion blog, and should be taken that way. In the end, even those who posts links are simply picking and choosing among the nearly infinite amount of info available to support their foregone conclusions. Those who don’t like Bush will sift through the “facts” and report those which reflect negatively on him. Those who don’t like Obama will sift through the “facts” and report those which reflect negatively on him. Is anything proven this way?? Not really, so in the end it is all banter. If you think differently, you are entitled to your opinions.
By USinUK
November 19, 2008 12:40 PM | Link to this
Gale -
USinUK, what is it with Brits calling everything pudding? This ‘Merican gets real confused with a comment about sopping anything with pudding. :-)
Pudding means 1 of 3 things:
1) Pudding - generic, all-purpose term for dessert (just like “Coke” is a generic term for any kind of soda, including Sprite)
2) Yorkshire Pudding - proof of a kind and loving god. It’s a batter very similar to pancake batter that you pour into either the same pan you cooked your roast beef in, or something like cupcake tins that have been heated in an oven at its highest temperature. They’re basically popovers.
3) Steak and Kidney Pudding - yuk. (well, to me, anyway) - the pastry is made with suet, then they line a bowl with the pastry, fill it with the filling, cover the bowl with some paper and twine and steam the thing in the oven (think bain marie). the pastry isn’t crisp, it leaves a coating in your mouth because of the suet. Yuk. Yuk. Yuk. sadly, Mr. USinUK loves it, so his mom has to make it for him.
there you go - pudding 101.
By Bruno
November 19, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
On the lighter front, I would like to encourage all of you to visit the King Tut exhibition at the Atlanta Civic Center while it is in town (through May, 2009). It was “Teacher’s Night” last night, so we got to go for free. It is really amazing to see statues and jewelry that was created more than 3000 years ago. Though we often think of ancient peoples as being less intelligent than modern peoples, the quality of the artifacts speaks otherwise.
By Sunshine
November 19, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this
Hi Bruno! (god of fertility! ;-)
Again, you are welcome to hold your private opinions about Bush, but he has acted within the scope of the law. I have to say I disagree. I believe Mr. Gonzales actively worked to re-write the law to suit the wants/needs of the current administration. I think the legally passed “Patriot Act” (god if there was EVER a misnomer!) has been stretched beyond all intended purposes b/c Mr. Bush said he could, then did. But you have your opinions and I will have mine, and that is fine. I just believe that the Democrats have not drawn up a legal team, named a prosecutor, and charged them with investigating the sitting President, as the Republicans DID! There is a difference in not agreeing with the President and making him give congressional testimony, on national TV. Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reed have both had calls to bring the President up on charges, which see Mara’s post above, there is OBVIOUS cause, and both have said they will not do that after what the Clinton impeachment did to divide us a nation. I know you hate them Lib’s but they have been more forgiving to Bush and Co. (as you call them) than the Republicans where to Clinton.
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this
Sunshine
This is all I’m going to say to you. You just mentioned several things that were hidden deep in my posts to other people. This tell me that you are rifling through everything i write. joke cannot get his nose out of my a^s. You have written four posts today, three of them have been extended rants toward me. So apparently, this obsession with everything i do or say is yet something else that you have in common with joke.
Whoever you are, leave me the hell alone. Stop rifling through my posts. Get your nose out of my a^s. Forget about my past. Forget about my future. Go and cackle in the little hen house that you have created. If you are who you say you are (dude), you have found a very closed circle of people that base their friendships solely on gender and politics. In that regard, they would probably die for you.
I’ve been around a lot of pregnant women and i have never known of any of them that would even consider calling the baby growing inside of them a future human, no matter how pro-choice they are. So I am left with either thinking that you are indeed a very mentally ill and pathetic little man who is completely obsessed with me or a pregnant woman who refuses to give her child the respect of calling that child a human.
Either way, you are no one that I would ever consider respecting enough to carry on a conversation with. I hope I have made myself very clear here.
By USinUK
November 19, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this
Brunoooooooooooooooooooo -
USinUK—I appreciate your simple acknowledgement as to the real reason Lieberman wasn’t kicked out of the Democratic Party. It has nothing to do with “being nice” and everything to do with power.
there is a world of difference between “being nice” and NOT being a jack-booted thug. huge chasm. a gulf. a veritable black hole. I never said they did it to be nice - I know they did it to keep the majority - but, again, if they were jack-booted thugs, they would have sh!t-canned him like he so richly deserves.
While you may privately believed that “Bush lied” regarding the Iraq War, there is no hard evidence to prove that.
no, the truth is actually worse - Bush didn’t lie. Bush cherry-picked the intel that he would use and which he would disregard. franky, that’s worse than lying. Remember Ahmed Chalabi?? Bush’s BFF?? everything the man said turned out to be a lie.
The fact remains that Saddam Hussein blocked the inspection of his nuclear facilities while the UN issued proclamation after proclamation.
I don’t know where you were in 2002, but I was listening to the news everyday. Saddam allowed the UN unfettered access in the lead-up to the war.
If any hard evidence ever surfaces to the contrary, then I will agree with you. again - like I said - he didn’t lie - he cherry-picked the intel he would believe and set aside that which didn’t suit his purposes - and that is what he presented to the Congress.
as far as not impeaching him to be nice - Pelosi, when she took the Speaker’s gavel - said explicitly that the Dems would not be pursuing impeachment. she said that from day 1. was she being nice? no - but she was being practical because she saw what it did to the country during 1997.
By Sunshine
November 19, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this
USinUk—You better be careful! We are making the same point so we must be the same person! You are not allowed to read the same stories as me or use the same points, got it! ;-)
By Mara
November 19, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this
Bruno - If any hard evidence ever surfaces to the contrary, then I will agree with you.
Considering this administrations penchant for destroying evidence, I don’t have much faith that “hard evidence” is going to appear. Circumstantial evidence, probably. But not the “smoking gun” per se.
After Bush discontinued the archiving system implemented by Bill Clinton, millions of electronic records that by LAW should have been preserved…disappeared. Then there’s the RNC accounts that the administration often used instead of the White House computer system, thus bypassing any federal record keeping. Plus their shady habit of using their own personal media devices (like Blackberrys) for government business. Those records aren’t accessable, if they even still exist.
Among other documented evidence destruction, there’s the destruction of video tapes supposedly showing CIA interrogators using techniques banned by law, techniques that they claim were authorized for use by the Office of the President.
And how about the change in how documents get classified? They’ve “classified” documents that have been in the public domain for years without notice or explaination. Do you think they’d hesitate to mark incriminating evidence as “classified”? Or hide it? Or keep it in their personal safe in their office, where it would be secure from all but the most long-contested search warrant? And that’s supposing we even knew the documents existed, which is no sure thing the way they’ve been acting.
Not only did the Executive Branch not file (legally requred) reports on their possession of classified data, at one point Cheney’s aides blocked a physical inspection of their office. And then D!ck had the gall to try and eliminate the Archives oversight office completely!
At each and every turn, those who attempted to hold this administration accountable have been openly stonewalled and balked. If it wasn’t “executive privelege”, it was blunt refusal to cooperate, refusal to make underlings available for depositions, refusal to provide documents, refusal to testify under oath, etc.
This adminstration has done everything in its power to hide or obfuscate its actions. Considering that at one time Daddy Bush was the Director of the CIA, if any evidence does exist it’s bound to be well concealed and well protected.
By Mara
November 19, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this
Gale, Sunshine - is it Christmas already? and Before he is even out of office?
did you know that he’s the first Vice President since Aaron Burr (1803) to be indicted by a Federal grand jury?
By Bruno
November 19, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this
I am a girl, and I will not let you do a body cavity search but since we are in cyperspace: frisk me baby!
That’s what I like about cyberspace: imagination rules!
I did have a chuckle while viewing the King Tut exhibit last night. While in the “Gold Room”, another man approached me and wondered out loud whether it was such a good idea to bring our wives and girlfriends to see all that fancy stuff so close to Christmas.
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this
USinUK
I wasn’t saying that everyone that voted for Obama was stupid. You know better than that. I would be saying that my son is stupid. (Sometimes he has been. It comes from his Mom’s side of the family.)
I am beginning to be impressed with Obama, but he hasn’t done anything yet. His 60 minutes interview, while very rehearsed, did make him look great. And he looked great beyond the normal CBS super left leaning horse sh^t they always use.
I had a very nice dinner last night with several close friends. For once I wasn’t the only conservative there. (Tonight’s poker game is always me and the libs) We had a pretty lively discussion, but together we came to one conclusion:
Wouldn’t it be great if Obama really was a great president? If the senate is a 60/40 split, there is no way he can be. There is just no way that he will be allowed to be a great president.
I’m glad McCain will retire with all the honor and respect that he deserves. After four or eight years of being the brunt of every joke on Comedy Central, he would have been hated by many, many Americans.
I think the vast majority of the bad feelings about Bush were generated, nurtured and produced by a very liberal media. We can argue about what was a lie, what wasn’t a lie, who voted for what, what he said, how he gave speeches, whatever. But the man was never given a chance. The mainstream media has made billions off the destruction of Bush. As my hero Richard Nixon said, they won’t have him to kick around any more. So now what do they do?
If nothing else, it is going to be extremely interesting.
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this
Bruno
I have been wanting to see that. Imagine the unseen security for all of that gold.
Did they actually have his coffin?
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this
Mara
At each and every turn, those who attempted to hold this administration accountable have been openly stonewalled and balked.
Are you talking about Bush or Clinton?
By USinUK
November 19, 2008 1:41 PM | Link to this
Sunshine -
USinUk—You better be careful! We are making the same point so we must be the same person! You are not allowed to read the same stories as me or use the same points, got
you, me and Mara … we’re actually some 57-year-old guy in Lilburn.
By Sunshine
November 19, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this
I think the vast majority of the bad feelings about Bush were generated, nurtured and produced by a very liberal media. We can argue about what was a lie, what wasn’t a lie, who voted for what, what he said, how he gave speeches, whatever. But the man was never given a chance.
And I call BS! Bush was OVERWHELMINGLY popular after 9/11.
From CNN: “Bush’s approval rating five years ago, at the start of the Iraq war, was 71 percent
You may not think it is important: what was a lie, what wasn’t a lie, who voted for what, what he said, how he gave speeches, whatever. but most normal rational voters do. (And BTW I hope you take that same POV to President Obama!) No one undid Mr. Bush but himself. This is not the media’s fault or the Liberals fault or the American peoples fault. The Bush administration did not make good decisions, that is their fault!
By Gale
November 19, 2008 1:48 PM | Link to this
Good point about who hid evidence. However, the Clintons never authorized spying on citizens, torture, or sent us to war.
By Bruno
November 19, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this
no, the truth is actually worse - Bush didn’t lie. Bush cherry-picked the intel that he would use and which he would disregard. franky, that’s worse than lying. Remember Ahmed Chalabi?? Bush’s BFF?? everything the man said turned out to be a lie.
This adminstration has done everything in its power to hide or obfuscate its actions. Considering that at one time Daddy Bush was the Director of the CIA, if any evidence does exist it’s bound to be well concealed and well protected.
Again, ladies, without hard evidence all we have is speculation. Don’t worry, though, I’m not going to pull a “JokesOn” against you and insult you for having your opinions, your suspicions. I respect you still the same.
At each and every turn, those who attempted to hold this administration accountable have been openly stonewalled and balked. If it wasn’t “executive privelege”, it was blunt refusal to cooperate, refusal to make underlings available for depositions, refusal to provide documents, refusal to testify under oath, etc.
For a minute, Mara, I thought you were referring to the Clinton Administration. I still would like to know how the missing Rose Law Firm records “magically” appeared on a White House coffee table when it became convenient for them to appear. Bill’s testimony (“It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”) still ranks among the best comedy routines ever, IMO.
By USinUK
November 19, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
Wouldn’t it be great if Obama really was a great president? If the senate is a 60/40 split, there is no way he can be. There is just no way that he will be allowed to be a great president
honey, the 60/40 split will allow him to be the president he wants to be as there won’t be the partisan crap to deal with.
I think the vast majority of the bad feelings about Bush were generated, nurtured and produced by a very liberal media
oh, TOJ - he had the media in his pocket after 9/11 and all during the lead-up to the war. criminey, the NYT, the WaPo, the LAT - they were all standing by his side, printing whatever the WH said. seriously - it was an echo chamber - the WH would say something to the NYT, the NYT would print it, the WH would quote the NYT, the NYT would print what he said … there was not investigative journalism, there was just a WH steno pool.
then, as things started to fall apart, they realized they were played for chumps and started actually looking into the things the guy said. they turned the rock over - only AFTER the re-election - and that’s when they found out about the destroyed e-mails, the torture memos, etc. W didn’t help himself, though - his appointment of his Texas buddies that knew less about running a government department than my mother-in-law’s dog (Harriet Myers nomination to the Supreme Court??? good gravy).
so, I’m sorry, but he got a 4-year free-pass from the media. he earned every bit of bad ink got in the last 4 years.
By USinUK
November 19, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this
Bruno -
I did have a chuckle while viewing the King Tut exhibit last night. While in the “Gold Room”, another man approached me and wondered out loud whether it was such a good idea to bring our wives and girlfriends to see all that fancy stuff so close to Christmas
gold is just so passe … it’s all about platinum baby!!! ;-)
the Tut exhibit was HUGE when it was here - they had it at the O2 arena and it got rave reviews! have you ever been to London and visited the British Museum?? they have an amazing Egyption collection - it absolutely blows me away that they have these tiny vases and jars that are thousands of years old. sheesh, my wine glasses never last past 10 years …
By Mara
November 19, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this
USinUK - we’re actually some 57-year-old guy in Lilburn.
ROTFL!!
TOJ - Are you talking about Bush or Clinton?
Tell you what…I’ll meet your “Clinton” and raise a “Nixon”.
By Bruno
November 19, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this
I have been wanting to see that. Imagine the unseen security for all of that gold.
There was plenty of visible security as well. While the overall amount of gold in the room wasn’t overwhelming, each one of the items is priceless due to thier age and historical importance. I almost got us thrown out at the first exhibit when I touched a 3500 year old statue. No one had specifically said NOT to touch the items….. ; > }
Did they actually have his coffin?
Neither the coffin nor the actual mummy of Tut were part of the exhibit, though they did have his golden “mask” on display which I’m sure you’ve seen in many books along with a super-large stone carving of the boy-king which I’ve seen in many books before. I did enjoy seeing the actual bed which he slept in as well. Again, we might think of ancient peoples as being less intelligent/sophisticated as modern humans, but the quality of the artifacts told a different story.
By Bruno
November 19, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this
However, the Clintons never authorized spying on citizens, torture, or sent us to war.
Are you so sure about that, Gale? The policy by which war prisoners could be “farmed out” to foreign countries for interrogation began under Clinton, and he used it liberally, although the press remained silent about it. As for spying on citizens by the Clintons, I believe they used their office inappropriately, though no hard evidence of the abuse likely remains. Finally, I guess you forgot about the Balkans War. Granted, it wasn’t as protracted as the Iraq War, but our troops were sent “into harm’s way”, all for the purpose of defending our Muslim “friends” in the area who were being pushed out by the Serbs who felt that the Kosovo area was historically their domain.
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this
USinUK
you, me and Mara … we’re actually some 57-year-old guy in Lilburn.
Again, bite me. Why the f^ck can’t you let this go? Almost every post this idiot has penned today has been attacking me. You want civil discussions in the blog or do you want it to continue to be a very closed circle of hens that cackle and cackle. if you want to be respected for your political opinions, then stop gossiping like an old nag.
And you wonder why I think this idiot is jokeson. And you fall for it every time.
By Gale
November 19, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this
Bruno, I usually keep my hands in my pockets when visiting museums. It’s safer that way.
By USinUK
November 19, 2008 2:20 PM | Link to this
Bruno -
Again, ladies, without hard evidence all we have is speculation. Don’t worry, though, I’m not going to pull a “JokesOn” against you and insult you for having your opinions, your suspicions. I respect you still the same.
there was a 5-year Senate investigation into this issue - which found that the WH did, in fact, cherry-pick intelligence. this isn’t my opinion this was the finding of the committee (which, for the record, was bi-partisan and started when the GOP was still in charge). they found that, while the WH didn’t pressure the intel staff, the administration was very selective of what it accepted and what it set aside.
that isn’t opinion. that is the findings of a bi-partisan investigation.
By Bruno
November 19, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this
the Tut exhibit was HUGE when it was here - they had it at the O2 arena and it got rave reviews! have you ever been to London and visited the British Museum?? they have an amazing Egyption collection - it absolutely blows me away that they have these tiny vases and jars that are thousands of years old. sheesh, my wine glasses never last past 10 years …
Sorry, hon, I’ve only been out of the country one time, and that was just a trip to Tijuana, Mexico for the day. I’m not a sophisticated world traveler like you. ; > }
we’re actually some 57-year-old guy in Lilburn.
Are you insulting Lilburnites again?? We’re pretty international now since they built the Hindu Temple on the corner of Rockbridge and Lawrenceville Highway. At night, they project red, blue, and purple lights on it—very psychedelic.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 19, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this
So funshine has to work 2 jobs..who is going to raise your offspring? Obama? 2 Jobs and raise a kid. I think you should consider adoption!
By Bruno
November 19, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this
Tell you what…I’ll meet your “Clinton” and raise a “Nixon”.
Good one, USinUK.
don’t you EVER get bored beating the same dead horse, year after year after year?
No.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 19, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
all I have to say about that is FTW! OR FANDALF THE WHITE!
By Gale
November 19, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this
Ok Bruno. I guess the degree of culpability blinded me. Bill Clinton, not the Clintons did what, apparently, presidents do; things idealists like me don’t like to think about.
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this
bruno
His tomb was packed with all sorts of beautiful things that were commonly used. I once flew over the Great Pyramid, but that is as close as I have ever gotten. And yes like some of the girls in my high school, they do get a little weird about people touching their treasures.
USinUK is right about the Egyptian exhibit in the British Museum. Before the 1940s, the brits stole everything they could get their hands on from the Egyptians. i think it is National Geographic that has a doc about what they don’t show in the British museum. Lots and lots of gold.
If you ever get to the Yucatan, (Cancun, Cozemel), take a day trip over to Coba. You climb up on top of this Mayan pyramid and you can see the outline of a huge ancient city that is still covered by the jungle. I think google earth has some great pictures of Coba. I love that stuff.
By Bruno
November 19, 2008 2:36 PM | Link to this
Again, bite me. Why the f^ck can’t you let this go? Almost every post this idiot has penned today has been attacking me. You want civil discussions in the blog or do you want it to continue to be a very closed circle of hens that cackle and cackle. if you want to be respected for your political opinions, then stop gossiping like an old nag.
TOJ—The only person I see using abusive language today is you. I’m sure you would get a lot more respect around here if you tried a “kinder, gentler” approach to blogging. As for Sunshine and all of the snipers being different characters invented by JokesOn, you’re wrong. I just completed my body-search of Sunshine, and she’s definitely all woman.
By Sunshine
November 19, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this
OMG, TOJ, we must be the same person too! (I am sorry now I am just having fun with it!) I have been to Coba, and you have been to Coba! Were you sore after the climb? Did you bike or take the taxi, oh silly me I should know this b/c you are me!
By Sunshine
November 19, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this
I just completed my body-search of Sunshine, and she’s definitely all woman. LOL! I wondered what all the tingling was from! Too funny Bruno!
By Bruno
November 19, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this
there was a 5-year Senate investigation into this issue - which found that the WH did, in fact, cherry-pick intelligence. this isn’t my opinion this was the finding of the committee (which, for the record, was bi-partisan and started when the GOP was still in charge). they found that, while the WH didn’t pressure the intel staff, the administration was very selective of what it accepted and what it set aside. that isn’t opinion. that is the findings of a bi-partisan investigation.
Fortunately for Bush, “cherry-picking info” isn’t a crime. I’m not disagreeing with the committee’s findings, just not sharing your opinion that Bush had evil intent in doing what he did. Again, Mara, it is often possible for two people to analyze the same exact data and walk away with different conclusions, different opinions. I understand and accept this, and as such, respect your opinions even if they are different from mine. You and several others have emphatically stated that Bush is guilty of breaking the law. That may be true, but I haven’t seen any hard evidence to support that conclusion so far. If I see concerete evidence, I will change my opinion.
By Bruno
November 19, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this
If you ever get to the Yucatan, (Cancun, Cozemel), take a day trip over to Coba. You climb up on top of this Mayan pyramid and you can see the outline of a huge ancient city that is still covered by the jungle. I think google earth has some great pictures of Coba. I love that stuff.
I’m still waiting on a loan from Sunshine to finance the trip. I like her repayment policy.
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this
gale
Ok Bruno. I guess the degree of culpability blinded me. Bill Clinton, not the Clintons did what, apparently, presidents do; things idealists like me don’t like to think about.
damn. You are starting to sound logical. Clinton sent the prisoners to other countries where they can be mutilated, skin stripped away, eyes gouged out and tortured to death. Bush sent them to Guantanamo, where they are treated better than most of the people caught on the TV show, COPS. But Bush will always be known as the pro-torture president.
It is amazing what an extremely liberal media has done to this country.
And USinUK, yes, the press was very supportive of Bush for the three weeks following 9-11. If you remember, democrats were holding hands and singing God Bless America on the Capital steps. That sure won’t ever happen again. . If anyone had been anti-Bush or anti-american during those three weeks, they would have never recovered. But of course a month after 9-11, the media was back to the same old crap they had been doing since 1968.
So yea, you win. The press was decent to a Republican for three weeks out of my life so that certainly negates the manipulation of our national elections by using overt propaganda and ultra biased news. Congradulations.
By USinUK
November 19, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
USinUK is right about the Egyptian exhibit in the British Museum. Before the 1940s, the brits stole everything they could get their hands on from the Egyptians. i think it is National Geographic that has a doc about what they don’t show in the British museum. Lots and lots of gold
I don’t think they like to think of it as “stolen” … more like “reapportioned” … or possibly “patriated” … but stolen?? “we are not amused” ;-)
as for the 57-year-old in Lilburn thing … honey, we’re not out to get you and the more you go on about Sunshine being Jokes, the more unhinged you look. seriously. this is a blog - nothing more. we all come in to debate and hang out. no one is here for the sole purpose of persecuting you or Bruno or even chuck - we’re here for an exchange of ideas, to get our argumentative yayas out and to share our opinions. nothing else -
I suggest that, if you do honestly think Sunshine is Jokes, you let it lie rather than go on about it. If you do, Sunshine will, too. it’s just that simple.
By Gale
November 19, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this
I don’t know about psychedelic, Bruno. But that temple is fabulously beautiful.
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this
Libby cred for bruno. You go, boy.
What? Did you think you were being just a little too decent to me? I thought so, too.
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 2:52 PM | Link to this
Sunshine.
Your nose out of my A^s.
K?
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this
USinUK
Maybe it’s too much to ask, but you might notice that the almost every post the idiot has made today has been for no other purpose than to keep this going. You responded to one of them, I wrote the idiot a detailed post a few hours ago about how I would really like for her to leave me the hell alone. I have been avoiding the subject but the idiot has slammed and slammed and slammed with not a word being said to her by anyone, including you.
So don’t give me this crap about me dropping it and the idiot will drop it. If you will open your extremely biased eyes for just a few seconds to scroll up the board, you will see what i mean.
And yes the Brits stole the artifacts. Although I would really like to see that exhibit. My visits to England were always working trips with no time to see anything.
By USinUK
November 19, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
TOJ -
So yea, you win. The press was decent to a Republican for three weeks out of my life so that certainly negates the manipulation of our national elections by using overt propaganda and ultra biased news. Congradulations.
3 weeks??? try 4 years. Bush got away with everything during his first term - like I said, it was only after the media realized they were being played for chumps did they start actually INVESTIGATING anything. and that didn’t happen until after his second inaugural.
But Bush will always be known as the pro-torture president
first of all, people have DIED at Guantanamo … and not of boredom. secondly, Bush won’t be known as the pro-torture president because of Guantanamo or even because of rendition - he’ll be known as the pro-torture president FOR THE PRO-TORTURE MEMO HE HAD GONZO WRITE. he’ll be known as the pro-torture memo for having an administration that thinks the Geneva Convention is “quaint”. he’ll be known as the pro-torture president because he blamed Abu Ghraib on “a few bad apples” when the truth was that the situation was endemic and was because he said it was okay
so, enough with the false argument that what Bush did was as bad as Clinton - Clinton was wrong for rendition, but he never let loose the CIA with the green light to torture people.
By Sunshine
November 19, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this
USinUK—2:48-Amen, I come here more than anything to argue points (nicely) so I don’t get in political arguments with my family! It helps around the dinner table :-)
So back to point/counter point:
If anyone had been anti-Bush or anti-american during those three weeks, they would have never recovered. But of course a month after 9-11, the media was back to the same old crap they had been doing since 1968.
This is just nonsense!
First of all Mr. Obama was against going to war from day one. And he just got elected President. Being upset about the 9/11 attacks and not agreeing with the President that we should invaded a sovereign nation are two different topics, just b/c you try to string them together doesn’t make it fact.
Second of all according to (www. pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm) (See Bruno, USin isn’t the only one who posts links ;-) Mr. GW’s approval rating was in the 70 percentile till 4/22-23/03 that is A LOT longer than three weeks. So please do a little research before you spout off about the big bad media crucifying our Savior in Chief Mr. GW Bush! The entire country is not wrong about his job performance.
By Gale
November 19, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this
damn. You are starting to sound logical. Clinton sent the prisoners to other countries where they can be mutilated, skin stripped away, eyes gouged out and tortured to death.
Not that logical. That is a leap too far. YOu have proof of this, of course? Something that would stand up in court so we could bring the man up on charges; maybe take it to the International courts?
By Fandalf, the White!
November 19, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this
I don’t get the whole torture thing. It is effective so why not use it on our enemies? You folks are just soft. It’s okay to remove life before it get out of the box…pun intended…but to get the bad guy to tell us where the bomb is, that’s big no go to cause pain? I don’t get. Jack Baur For PRESIDENT!
By USinUK
November 19, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this
Sunshine -
I come here more than anything to argue points (nicely) so I don’t get in political arguments with my family! It helps around the dinner table
haha … ME, TOO!!! plus, it does make me stop and think before I start arguing - there have been times on the train ride home when I’ve constructed my argument and thought about what stats I wanted to find to prove my pont. nothing like honing those debate skills!
By Mara
November 19, 2008 3:26 PM | Link to this
I learned something today. Did you all know that Hitler only had one testicle? I did not. Evidently, the missing testicle was blown off at the Battle of the Somme.
(LOL…I was going to change “blown off” to “shot off”…but either was it sounds like a double entendre)
okay, I’m outtie buds. quittin’ time -
By Frustrated
November 19, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this
TOJ….AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH..
Try this approach…
plugging ears, close eyes “Lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala”
Maybe they will go away. If they don’t, turning off your computer will definitely make them go away.
Seriously, you sound like a 4 year old. “I’m rubber, you’re glue….whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you”
By Sunshine
November 19, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this
plus, it does make me stop and think before I start arguing—Me too, (sorry, I am sure that qualifies as some sort of cackle! Lol!) It makes me think before I make a point, and some times I want to make a point look for data, and what I thought isn’t really the whole story. I really have gotten very good at internet research b/c of it AND I can site the d!ckens out of the facts I learn when I am baited, or get asked what I think! I don’t get many chances anymore b/c I will go straight to the computer and print out facts and figures I remember, my Dad doesn’t like to be proved wrong :-)
By Gale
November 19, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this
Hmmm, I went looking again at the major news services for info about the Cheney indictment. I figured the libreral media would be crowing this item. nada. I only see it in less known sites when I google for it.
By Monica
November 19, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this
Hey all! Just a few thoughts:
I have always thought that Mara and USinUK sounded alike with their views and similar styles of posting, but I never thought that they.were.the.same. :)
How do I always miss the “teachers for free” exhibit nights? Dang! We really want to take our boys to the Tut exhibit. My 7 year old loves history - he would choose the Discovery Channel over Cartoon Network 3 times out of 5 - and he is asking to go see this one.
Steak and Kidney pudding sounds enough to make me stick to a diet. Ugh!
I’m off to Google Cheney and indictment. Can’t believe that it isn’t sprawled across the AJC breaking news!
By JokesOn
November 19, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this
Whoever you are, leave me the hell alone. Stop rifling through my posts. Get your nose out of my a^s.
Effing retard. Look who has posted about whom and was/is obsessing. You make a fool out of yourself each day.
You are the entertainment, you know that right? (think about it…whether in the ring with you or sidelines, everyone comes here to watch Troof get whipped each day.)
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this
USinUK
3 weeks??? try 4 years.
Are you out of your mind? Are you actually saying that the media was friendly about the Iraq war? Is that really what you are saying? How can I argue with that? Do you really think the media was pro-war during the first years of the war? But of course if you can’t recognize the extremely biased coverage of this election, I’m not sure you would recognize biased news, no matter how overt it is.
Here again, you win, because I can’t teach you what bias really is. if you really look at the last election and saw and read how the media was gushing about Obama and how they went after McCain/Palin like they were on the top ten most wanted list and still say that the coverage was fair, how could i convince you of anything?
I was once working for a network where we were given access to a leading Republican. They were literally filing us through, giving each crew an hour to set up, shoot the interview and then strike. Of course during set up and strike, the Republican and his “people” would leave the room. We followed CNN, so as I was setting up, they were striking their lights. I couldn’t help but notice that they had been using direct lighting for the interview. In making conversation, I asked: Do you guys not use scrim on your lights? The producer for CNN looked at me and laughed and said: Not for Republicans. The whole crew laughed at that.
Now that probably doesn’t mean anything to you. What it means to me is that they don’t soften the lights for Republicans. Harsh, direct lighting is what a horror movie uses. It makes people look evil. It causes harsh, unattractive shadows, not only on their faces, but also on the background. They also used a 5600K (blue) gel on the “hair” light. This gives a very unattractive, “cold” look to the interview.
I know that means nothing to you, so if I can’t even explain why the technical aspect of conducting an interview can be made very biased, how can i explain how the choosing of only one side of any story is biased.
And now you tell me that the media was friendly toward Bush during the beginning months of the Iraq war. I don’t mean this as an insult, but believe what you want. As I say a lot, I really do understand my limitations.
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this
Joke
Your nose out of my a^s.
K?
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this
Gandalf
People setting on their butts in offices can afford to take a strong stand against torture. Put them in a room, give them a baseball bat, put a man in that room and tie him up. That man has information that would save the lives of the guy with the ball bat’s family.
The only problem would be to keep them from beating the man to death before he gave them the information they wanted. it’s easy to have strong principles about what other people do. When you have the ball bat in your hand, chances are that the principles will go out the window.
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this
USinUK
That should be a 56K blue gel. Or it could be a 5600 kelvin gel. I kind of crossed them up there.
By Sunshine
November 19, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this
Here’s a former FBI interrogator — who interrogated Al Quaeda suspects — saying categorically that torture does not help collect intelligence, but that it does sell impressionable people on the legitimacy of jihad, on the grounds that a regime that tortures deserves to be attacked.
Former FBI Interrogator Jack Cloonan explains that regular interrogation tactics work well on even the worst terrorists, that there’s no such thing as a “ticking timebomb” scenario, and that waterboarding has done much more harm than good.
Torture doesn’t work. It erodes national security and democracy. Torture is an ineffective counterinsurgency strategy. Torture escalates conflict. Torture blocks international cooperation against terror among valuable democratic allies. Torture drives out legitimate policing. Torture undermines the rule of law and corrupts democratic institutions.
Similarly, America’s credibility in promoting democratic reform among unstable front-line allies such as Pakistan depends on honoring its international commitments such as the Convention Against Torture. US commanders believe that adherence to the Geneva Conventions helps ensure the safety of the troops.
From (www. csmonitor.com/2007/1114/p09s01-coop.html)
Good grief, do you really never read, look at, or think about the facts? But as you said TOJ: how can i explain how the choosing of only one side of any story is biased…. I don’t mean this as an insult, but believe what you want. As I say a lot, I really do understand my limitations.
By Sunshine
November 19, 2008 4:50 PM | Link to this
Sorry didn’t include the link to the first part: (www. youtube.com/watch?v=lvsvO9kvSdo)
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 5:22 PM | Link to this
Hey Joke,
Still harassing Brian because you think he is me? Boy, did you make an a^s out of yourself there. That is what this is about, isn’t it? See ya tomorrow.
By Bruno
November 19, 2008 5:43 PM | Link to this
How do I always miss the “teachers for free” exhibit nights?
You snooze, you lose, Monica.
I don’t know about psychedelic, Bruno. But that temple is fabulously beautiful.
It’s all in the preparation, Gale. “First we must relax.”
Libby cred for bruno. You go, boy. What? Did you think you were being just a little too decent to me? I thought so, too.
TOJ—In case you haven’t noticed, I agree with you politically. I think you make a lot of excellent points, whether those points are ever acknowledged by the lefties or not. However, when you start insulting people, using foul language, and ranting about JokesOn, you lose all credibility on the spot. I’ve been guilty of ranting in the past, so am not jumping on you. Why don’t you consider JokesOn challenge to stick to news and politics and leave out the personal insults?
Effing retard. Look who has posted about whom and was/is obsessing. You make a fool out of yourself each day.
You, too, JokesOn. I thought your challenge to TOJ was done with a good spirit. Hope all is well with you.
By The Other Jack
November 19, 2008 6:43 PM | Link to this
Bruno
How about if I just ignore him? Would that work for you?
You may notice that I have ignored Sunshine all day, but that didn’t even slow “it” down. Most of the many posts that had Sunshine at the head was written to me, even after I made no bones about asking “it” to leave me the hell alone. Now you may think that is normal behavior, but it seems a bit obsessed to me, sort of like the way Jokes admitted to stalking me around the internet.
But what encourages “it” is when “it” goes from person to person to try to get a rise, which “it” did to you, which, of course you fell for.
Of course as usual when joke appears there were a couple of snipers that had some very nasty things to say about me. What, you didn’t have anything to say to them? Why not?
But Bruno, can you give me a single reason that that these snipers can come on and say some pretty despicable things about me. and then Sunshine can write post after post after post to me that I always ignore, then Sunshine goes from person to person stirring up the sh^t, and then joke comes on and says even more nasty things to me, but then you jump my a^s if I say a single thing back to any of those “people”. Can you tell me that?
Can you give me a single reason why you never ever say a single word to anyone but me?
I was shocked that you even said “You Too”, after joke’s daily end of the day attack.
Innocent little Sunshine spent the entire day stirring the crap and you and USinUk fell for it like it was cotton candy.
I’ll make a deal with you. I will continue to ignore Sunshine. I will continue to ignore the snipers and I will add joke to the list of people to be ignored as long as you stop falling for Sunshine’s continued efforts to stir up the crap. Talk to “it” all you want, but when “it” starts stirring the crap, you just ignore that part of “it’s” post.
And I make this challenge to USinUK, too. When you stop participating in the baiting, the attacks and the gossip that keeps dragging the subject back up, I will do everything I can to stick to politics.
But I need to tell you, i don’t ever see you keeping the deal. You are way to ready to turn on anyone, especially me, for the approval of others.
By USinUK
November 20, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
2 things … first up:
And I make this challenge to USinUK, too. When you stop participating in the baiting, the attacks and the gossip that keeps dragging the subject back up, I will do everything I can to stick to politics.
honey, I just find it sad/weird/strange/bizarre that you seem to have no problem accepting that I am a married chicklet living in London but are so insistent about Sunshine. that’s why I made the joke about being a 57-year old greasy guy in Lilburn. so what that she knew your back-story - I malingered here for months before I started posting, as well (connections with Diane had me reading the column for about 6 months or so before I started posting). so, I kinda knew a little about the posters, as well.
next up: last thoughts about the war’s impact on the economy. I tooled around Bloomberg today to double-check my assertion that the defense industry hasn’t been positively impacted by the war. If you look at the 3 primary areas in defense (aeornautics, electronic equipment and electronic instruments) - jobs in aeronautics and electronic equipment have declined precipitously since 2002. Electronic instruments plummeted in 2002 but has made a come-back nearly to pre-war numbers - but there haven’t ANY additions to pre-war numbers. I’m happy to give you hard numbers if you like - all of the data are Dept. of Labor statistics (but, since they’re from my Bbg database, I can’t give you a linkee).
I know you want to believe that the war has a silver lining for the economy, but the data just aren’t there to support your opinion.
By USinUK
November 20, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this
Class –
I apologize in advance for the length of this post … if you’re not in the mood, feel free to scroll baby scroll.
However, this kind of crap drives me flipping insane: Are you out of your mind? Are you actually saying that the media was friendly about the Iraq war? Is that really what you are saying? How can I argue with that? Do you really think the media was pro-war during the first years of the war? But of course if you can’t recognize the extremely biased coverage of this election, I’m not sure you would recognize biased news, no matter how overt it is.
Yes, TOJ, that’s exactly what I’m saying. And, the funny thing is – I’m not the only one saying it. The following are examples of the pro-administration/pro-war bias they showed as well as some analysis of media coverage in the lead-up to the Iraq War.
First up is Der Spiegel (for those of you who don’t know, Der Spiegel is Germany’s national news magazine) – I thought it would be interesting to show how an uninvolved 3rd party media outlet viewed the lead-up:
However, the role of the US media in these turbulent times had problems of its own. After the September 11 attacks, journalists also felt the need to express patriotism. It is well-known that patriotism and journalistic principles make strange bed-fellows. Leading conservative media such as “Fox News” or the “New York Post” transformed themselves into “war cheerleaders”, leaving staff to smile weakly about the principle of objectivity, or, to put it more mildly, editorial distance. Even the more relaxed news media, though, plastered their front pages and TV screens with slogans such as “A Nation in Danger” or “A Nation under Attack”, leaving little room for pondering or skepticism. The phenomenal ability of the Bush administration to declare its point of view to be the only possible opinion played a significant role here. The “New York Times” eventually found itself in the fairly unique position of having to print an apology to its readers for its reporting prior to the Iraq conflict because reporter Judith Miller had believed dubious sources about the existence of weapons of mass-destruction in Iraq, despite the fact that these sources were at the heart of the US administration.
But others should reflect on their performance, too: for example NBC News, which began the countdown on the “Road to War” early on. Major TV channels allowed air time primarily to experts who believed that diplomacy was the work of the devil and best left to the history books. CNN presented Donald Rumsfeld’s press conferences like a daily live quote-fest without much probing behind the information on offer. Surveys show that around 80 percent of US citizens mainly source their news from the television, but this seemed to be letting them down with greater frequency. When US soldiers fired on a vehicle full of civilians at a checkpoint near the Iraqi town of Kerbela, killing seven women and children, their fellow-Americans had to rely almost entirely on up-to-date details from British broadcaster BBC World. For a long time the US channels hid the story away in a small sidebar. Although the then head of the BBC, Greg Dyke, was pleased with record viewing figures (foreign media in the USA had an audience up to 60 percent higher than usual at this time), he finally cracked. “Some American TV journalists seem to have wrapped themselves in the flag before the start of the Iraq War, making them unable to do the job the public expects from them,” Dyke stormed soon after the invasion had started.
http:// www. spiegel.de/ international/world/0,1518,478884,00.html
The Washington Post did their own internal review and found that their objectivity was lacking:
The Washington Post yesterday published a major 3,000 word front-page story examining how the paper downplayed critics of the Iraq war before the U.S. attacked. Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks revealed how in October 2002 editors killed a piece of his titled “Doubts” that outlined how many senior Pentagon officials were reluctant about plans to attack Iraq. Ricks also added “The paper was not front-paging stuff. Administration assertions were on the front page. Things that challenged the administration were on A18 on Sunday or A24 on Monday. There was an attitude among editors: Look, we’re going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?”
Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. admitted mistakes were made. He said “Across the country, the voices raising questions about the war were lonely ones. We didn’t pay enough attention to the minority.”
Here’s a section from the WaPo mea culpa:
Clearly we were insufficiently skeptical of intelligence reports. It would almost be comforting if Mr. Bush had “lied the nation into war,” as is frequently charged. The best postwar journalism instead suggests that the president and his administration exaggerated, cherry-picked and simplified but fundamentally believed — as did the CIA — the catastrophically wrong case that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented to the United Nations.
The question that Gen. David H. Petraeus posed (as recounted in Rick Atkinson’s history, “In the Company of Soldiers”) as he led the troops of his 101st Airborne Division from Kuwait across the Iraq border, “Tell me how this ends?” — that question must be the first to be asked, not the last. The answer won’t always be knowable. But the discussion must never lose sight of the inevitable horrors of war. It must not be left to the generals in the field. And it must assume, based on experience from Germany to Korea to Afghanistan, that a U.S. commitment, once embarked upon, will not soon be over.
We raised such issues in our prewar editorials but with insufficient force. In February 2003, for example, we wrote that “the president [must] finally address, squarely and in public, the question of how Iraq will be secured and governed after a war that removes Saddam Hussein, and what the U.S. commitment to that effort will be… . Who will rule Iraq, and how? Who will provide security? How long will U.S. troops remain? … Many of these questions appear not to have been answered even inside the administration… .” They were still unanswered when the war, which we nevertheless supported, began. That should never happen again.
http:// www. washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031700950.html
Of course, the NYT got major national coverage for its own apology for using anonymous sources and its unquestioning, unprobing reports leading up to the war:
New York Times:
Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all.
(snip)
*On Sept. 8, 2002, the lead article of the paper was headlined “U.S. Says Hussein Intensified Quest for A-Bomb Parts.” That report concerned the aluminum tubes that the administration advertised insistently as components for the manufacture of nuclear weapons fuel. The claim came not from defectors but from the best American intelligence sources available at the time. Still, it should have been presented more cautiously. There were hints that the usefulness of the tubes in making nuclear fuel was not a sure thing, but the hints were buried deep, 1,700 words into a 3,600-word article. Administration officials were allowed to hold forth at length on why this evidence of Iraq’s nuclear intentions demanded that Saddam Hussein be dislodged from power: “The first sign of a `smoking gun,’ they argue, may be a mushroom cloud.”
Five days later, The Times reporters learned that the tubes were in fact a subject of debate among intelligence agencies. The misgivings appeared deep in an article on Page A13, under a headline that gave no inkling that we were revising our earlier view (“White House Lists Iraq Steps to Build Banned Weapons”). The Times gave voice to skeptics of the tubes on Jan. 9, when the key piece of evidence was challenged by the International Atomic Energy Agency. That challenge was reported on Page A10; it might well have belonged on Page A1.*
http:// www. nytimes.com/ 2004/05/26/ international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?ex=1227330000&en=d03503de368f3890&ei=5070
Lastly, from a Bill Moyers documentary, we get the admissions of war cheerleading from the media, themselves:
Among the few heroes of the film are reporters with the Knight Ridder/McClatchy bureau in D.C. Tragically late, Walter Isaacson, who headed CNN, observes, “The people at Knight Ridder were calling the colonels and the lieutenants and the people in the CIA and finding out, you know, that the intelligence is not very good. We should’ve all been doing that.”
At the close, Moyers mentions some of the chief proponents of the war who refused to speak to him for this program, including Thomas Friedman, Bill Kristol, Roger Ailes, Charles Krauthammer, Judith Miller, and William Safire.
But Dan Rather, the former CBS anchor, admits, “I don’t think there is any excuse for, you know, my performance and the performance of the press in general in the roll up to the war…We didn’t dig enough. And we shouldn’t have been fooled in this way.” Bob Simon, who had strong doubts about evidence for war, was asked by Moyers if he pushed any of the top brass at CBS to “dig deeper,” and he replies, “No, in all honesty, with a thousand mea culpas….nope, I don’t think we followed up on this.”
Instead he covered the marketing of the war in a “softer” way, explaining to Moyers: “I think we all felt from the beginning that to deal with a subject as explosive as this, we should keep it, in a way, almost light - if that doesn’t seem ridiculous.”
Moyers replies: “Going to war, almost light.”
* Walter Isaacson is pushed hard by Moyers and finally admits, “We didn’t question our sources enough.” But why? Isaacson notes there was “almost a patriotism police” after 9/11 and when the network showed civilian casualties it would get phone calls from advertisers and the administration and “big people in corporations were calling up and saying, ‘You’re being anti-American here.’”*
Moyers then mentions that Isaacson had sent a memo to staff, leaked to the Washington Post, in which he declared, “It seems perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in Afghanistan” and ordered them to balance any such images with reminders of 9/11. Moyers also asserts that editors at the Panama City (Fla.) News-Herald received an order from above, “Do not use photos on Page 1A showing civilian casualties. Our sister paper has done so and received hundreds and hundreds of threatening emails.”
Walter Pincus of the Washington Post explains that even at his paper reporters “do worry about sort of getting out ahead of something.” But Moyers gives credit to Charles J. Hanley of The Associated Press for trying, in vain, to draw more attention to United Nations inspectors failing to find WMD in early 2003.
The disgraceful press reaction to Colin Powell’s presentation at the United Nations seems like something out of Monty Python, with one key British report cited by Powell being nothing more than a student’s thesis, downloaded from the Web - with the student later threatening to charge U.S. officials with “plagiarism.”
Phil Donahue recalls that he was told he could not feature war dissenters alone on his MSNBC talk show and always had to have “two conservatives for every liberal.” Moyers resurrects a leaked NBC memo about Donahue’s firing that claimed he “presents a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war. At the same time our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.”
Moyers also throws some stats around: In the year before the invasion William Safire (who predicted a “quick war” with Iraqis cheering their liberators) wrote “a total of 27 opinion pieces fanning the sparks of war.” The Washington Post carried at least 140 front-page stories in that same period making the administration’s case for attack. In the six months leading to the invasion the Post would “editorialize in favor of the war at least 27 times.”
So, TOJ, I’m sorry. You may have your opinions of the pre-war coverage, but the facts don’t bear them out.
By norman ravitch
November 20, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this
Republicans have never given a Democratic president a fair shake. From 1932 to the present they have used Goebbels-like tactics to damn every president. They are truly pernicious and perhaps at last, thanks to another Republican depression, the public is coming to understand the GOP, Government of Plutocrats.
By USinUK
November 20, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
So, TOJ, I’m sorry. You may have your opinions of the pre-war coverage, but the facts don’t bear them out.
… and as for your lighting = liberal assertion, please see Bruno about a quarter …
By Sunshine
November 20, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this
USin—Bravo! You get the Tiara all day long for your 8:28!
By USinUK
November 20, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
Sunshine -
USin—Bravo! You get the Tiara all day long for your 8:28!
darnit … where did I put those pearls!!! and my scepter and orb!! (rummaging through my desk … let’s see … pistachios … emergency deoderant … hairbrush … nailfile … shoot, no scepter and orb)
thanks for that - Google is a wonderful thing …
By Gale
November 20, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this
USinUK, Sunshine, was that a slip? Bravo! If you were really ladies, it would be Brava, yes? So, you must really be men; probably not 57, but 17, still into adolescent silliness.
I found a bit more about the Cheney indictment. It appears we have some wacky Texas politicking going on.
By Fandalf, the White!
November 20, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this
EXPAT: Sceptre and Orb are available at every corner drugstore over there, as far as we know….
By The Other Jack
November 20, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
USinUK
So you start with showing me a publican from Germany that the first thing they do is attack FOX News and the New York Post. Then you show me the Washington Post and then the New York Times. Then you go to Bill Moyers with PBS. Finally, it’s Bill Moyers on why the most far left, anti-American, anti-Bust person on TV was fired which was nothing but pure crap. Donahue was fired because he was demanding huge money and his show never pulled the ratings. After his show had been so incredibly nasty, the ratings went through the floor, so they asked him to lighten up. He refused. They fired him. Of course Bill moyers didn’t like that. He works for PBS, (the postal workers TV, as every producer in Atlanta calls the crew at GPTV, because of their lack of cooperation, ability and their attitude) where he is given free reign to spout anything he decides to be good journalism.
Here’s your problem and my problem. You have listed the most liberal of the left wing media. Thje WaPo has been practically a joke for the past eight years, The New York Times kept revealing national security secrets time after time after time. Bill Moyers, while I liked him for years has gone completely over the edge and Phil Donahue, the man that has wanted us out of Iraq before the first boots were on the ground.
I know that you spent the time and I know this is going to pi^s you off, but you can’t prove that a very biased media was biased the wrong way by siting the most liberal sources in the mainstream.
Like I said before, media bias is a hard thing to prove. And I knew you would not understand the significance of the CNN producer’s statement to me. So you blow off what an actual CNN decision maker’s statement and want me to accept opinions of the liberal media by the most liberal media in the liberal media.
So how about if I show you some exact quotes from News Anchors and reporters, during the time in question? Will that mean anything?
“It is 215 years ago that the Constitution was signed. And on Capitol Hill today, historians delivered a petition to Congress saying Congress must vote on whether or not to declare war against Iraq, not just authorize military action. The petition, signed by more than 1200 historians, says by not acting Congress has left the President solely in control of war powers to the detriment of democracy and in clear violation of the Constitution.” – ABC’s Peter Jennings on World News Tonight, Sept. 17. (2002)
“We begin with that moment when Wile E. Coyote looks back and sees the Road Runner standing at the edge of the cliff – which means he isn’t standing on anything but thin air. Seems a bit like where the Bush administration is tonight, scrambling to get back onto solid ground after the Iraqi offer to let UN weapons inspectors come back into the country. The President is trying to shift the spotlight back to Iraqi misbehavior. The Secretary of State, meantime, is in New York trying to keep members of the Security Council from taking an Iraqi ‘yes’ for an answer, but momentum is gathering.”
– Aaron Brown on CNN’s NewsNight, September 17. (2002)
Brian Williams: “The situation hasn’t been this lopsided in terms of one breakout superpower on the planet in quite some time.” Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria: “It hasn’t been like this since the Roman Empire two millennia ago.” Williams: “I was going to say we’d have to go back to the days of the Empire, and that gives the U.S. obvious military swagger. Does it give them any kind of moral courage above anyone else and anyone’s world, and isn’t that world view part of what got the United States in trouble September 11th?” – CNBC’s The News with Brian Williams, September 18. (2002)
Tom Brokaw: “That brings us to America’s growing Arab and Muslim communities. For many, this has been the year – as one observer put it – that the American dream for them descended into nightmares.” Jim Avila: “This is Jenin Ahman, an American of Palestinian descent, born 42 years ago in suburban Chicago, now worried everything she learned as an American about justice and civil rights collapsed along with New York’s Twin Towers.” – NBC Nightly News, September 11. (2002)
Washington Post reporter Juliet Eilperin: “I think it’s difficult when there’s less dissent in the country….At a period when politicians are unwilling to criticize the President or certain people, what’s your role as a reporter? Do you seek out a tiny minority and court them and encourage them to speak out? Or do you simply reflect the fact that there’s someone who will tell you off the record, ‘I’m too scared to say anything because I know it might cost me my re-election’?” – Responses to moderator Gwen Ifill’s question about whether reporters’ jobs are more difficult since last September 11, on PBS’s Washington Week, September 13. (2002)
“Many Iraqis believe America’s true motive is to remove Saddam Hussein from power, install a puppet government and seize Iraq’s vast oil wealth. On the streets, many see Hussein’s offer to allow the inspectors back as a wise, brave decision showing strength.” – NBC’s Ron Allen reporting from Baghdad for the September 17 Nightly News. (2002)
And now to the presentL here are several quotes about the media coverage of the election:
Eight years ago when incoming President George W. Bush named Senator John Ashcroft as his choice for Attorney General, the broadcast network evening newscasts applied ideological labels and highlighted opposition to him from liberals, but Tuesday night with President-elect Barack Obama’s pick of Eric Holder for the same position, the anchors avoided any ideological tags or controversies and hailed him as an “historic” pick which fulfills Obama’s promise of “diversity.”
And here: After years of bashing George W. Bush, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews declares his approach to covering Barack Obama next year, and it doesn’t sound like hardball: “I want do do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work….It is my job. My job is to help this country.” Meanwhile, reporters are gleeful that Obama won the election, with CBS’s Byron Pitts declaring that America is now “a more perfect union,” even as Time’s Nancy Gibbs glows that Obama is a “prince….born in the imagination, out of scraps of history and hope.” And, after 22 months of fawning coverage, a Reuters headline declares: “Media bias largely unseen in U.S. presidential race.”
“I think the real breakout tonight is [Illinois Senate candidate Barack] Obama. I mean, Teresa [Heinz-Kerry] is a fascinating story, but Obama is a rock star!” — NBC’s Andrea Mitchell during MSNBC’s live coverage of the Democratic convention, July 27, 2004.
“I have to tell ya — a little chill in my, in my legs now. That is an amazing moment in history right there. It is really an amazing moment. A keynoter like I’ve never heard….I’ve just seen the first black president there!” — MSNBC’s Chris Matthews following Obama’s speech before the Democratic convention, July 27, 2004
Run, Barack, Run! “Obama’s personal appeal is made manifest when he steps down from the podium and is swarmed by well-wishers of all ages and hues….Obama seemed the political equivalent of a rainbow — a sudden preternatural event inspiring awe and ecstasy….He transcends the racial divide so effortlessly that it seems reasonable to expect that he can bridge all the other divisions — and answer all the impossible questions — plaguing American public life.” — Time’s Joe Klein, October 23, 2006 cover story, “Why Barack Obama Could Be the Next President.”
“Many people, afterwards [after Obama’s 2004 convention speech], they weren’t sure how to pronounce your name but they were moved by you. People were crying. You tapped into something. You touched people….If your party says to you, ‘We need you,’ and, and there’s already a drumbeat out there, will you respond?” — Co-host Meredith Vieira to Obama on NBC’s Today, October 19, 2006.
Is He “The One?” “You can see it in the crowds. The thrill, the hope. How they surge toward him. You’re looking at an American political phenomenon….He inspires the party faithful and many others, like no one else on the scene today….And the question you can sense on everyone’s mind, as they listen so intently to him, is he the one? Is Barack Obama the man, the black man, who could lead the Democrats back to the White House and maybe even unite the country?…Everywhere he goes, people want him to run for President, especially in Iowa, cradle of presidential contenders. Around here, they’re even naming babies after him.” — ABC Nightline co-anchor Terry Moran, Nov. 6, 2006.
Mesmerized by “Stoic Eloquence” “Now to Barack Obama. When I spent the day with him in Iowa over the weekend, you could sense the excitement he nearly always generates….Whatever he’s eating, it is working for Obama….Here as elsewhere, the crowd listens closely to Barack Obama’s real argument, that he is tomorrow, a fresh face who represents a real change from our bitter polarized politics….When you talk to Iowa voters who come to hear Obama, you get the sense they know they might be part of something big here, something historic.” — ABC’s Terry Moran on Nightline, November 26, 2007.
They come in droves, by the tens of thousands at times, to hear Barack Obama speak….With soaring rhetoric, Obama is moving his audiences not just politically, but emotionally. Even some political commentators who’ve seen it all can’t help but gush….The stoic eloquence channels John F. Kennedy.” — CBS’s Tracy Smith on the The Early Show, February 14.
This was just a few of the pages of similar comments.
You won’t win this one with opinions of the liberal media by presenting the views of the most liberal of the liberal media.
But of course the real question is do you understand bias when you see it? Do you believe the quotes I have listed to be bias? In fact, for Moyers to say many of the things that you listed shows an extremely biased viewpoint. But like I said, it all depends on what you consider to be bias.
I think you said that you have a journalism degree. Here’s a question. What makes a news story biased?
By USinUK
November 20, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
FTW -
EXPAT: Sceptre and Orb are available at every corner drugstore over there, as far as we know….
LOL - now, that was funny
By Mara
November 20, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
Gale - I went looking…at the major news services for info about the Cheney indictment. I only see it in less known sites when I google for it. and I found a bit more about the Cheney indictment
I’m not sure where you are or were looking because all the major media have the story. I even see links to news sources in India, Australia, UK, and Germany. Yesterday it was posted at Drudge, RawStory, Politico and CNN.
from today’s RawStory -
A Texas judge has set a Friday arraignment for Vice President Dick Cheney, former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and others named in indictments accusing them of responsibility for prisoner abuse in a federal detention center.
Cheney, Gonzales and the others will not be arrested, and do not need to appear in person at the arraignment, Presiding Judge Manuel Banales said.
In the latest bizarre development in the case, the lame-duck prosecutor who won the indictments was a no-show in court Wednesday. The judge ordered Texas Rangers to go to Willacy County District Attorney Juan Guerra’s house, check on his well-being and order him to court on Friday.
— it gets interesting farther into the article. From what’s being written, it looks like the prosecutor, Guerra, is something of a character.
By The Other Jack
November 20, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Oh yea. Loved the Dan Rather quote. The man that had been a anchor for years and years but got caught making things up in order to attack the Republican president. Yea, now with that kind of credibility in your post, i should just fall to my knees and thank you for the wisdom. LOL!!
By The Other Jack
November 20, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this
To the hopeful that are slobbering about the Cheney indictment.
The reason it is getting no play is because it was cooked up by a lame duck prosecutor as a political stunt before he is tossed out on his extremely liberal butt. Even the liberal media is not going to touch this bucket of crap.
As Mara listed, he didn’t even show up for the pre-trial. So apparently, you poor, poor people are more interested in this farse than the DA that invented it.
I would suggest that you spend at least two more weeks on it. it will give you something to do while the country continues to disintegrate under a Reid/Pelosi Congress.
By USinUK
November 20, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
So you start with showing me a publican from Germany that the first thing they do is attack FOX News and the New York Post … yeah, and they they launched into CNN and NBC - your point?
He refused. They fired him. Of course Bill moyers didn’t like that. right. and the memo they showed that backed Donahue’s story matters not at all to you … am I surprised? not really.
The New York Times kept revealing national security secrets time after time after time you mean like Bob Novak revealing an undercover CIA agent?? the same Bob Novak who remained employed by the WaPo despite doing that?? publishing that the NSA is wiretapping Americans without a warrant is an act of patriotism … not that I’d expect you to agree (unless, of course, it was Clinton doing the tapping)
And I knew you would not understand the significance of the CNN producer’s statement to me. there’s a simple reason - please look up the phrase “porky pies” in Cockney rhyming slang.
ABC’s Peter Jennings on World News Tonight, Sept. 17. (2002) - not bias - it was an actual story, whether you like it or not
Aaron Brown on CNN’s NewsNight, September 17. (2002) - how on earth is that biased? it was the perfect illustration to the situation
NBC’s Andrea Mitchell during MSNBC’s live coverage of the Democratic convention, July 27, 2004 (et al) - whether you like it or not, Obama came out of nowhere and was the superstar of the convention. EVERYone talked about the speech (no red/blue, talking about how Dems are people of religion, as well)
Time’s Joe Klein, October 23, 2006 cover story, “Why Barack Obama Could Be the Next President.” - you’re quoting Joe Klein to me?? baaaaaaahahahaha … Joe “Primary Colors” Klein as biased towards Dems??? Joe “Bush Apologist” Klein??? thanks for the laugh.
ABC Nightline co-anchor Terry Moran, Nov. 6, 2006 - yeah. and?? Oprah had just called him The One when she was out stumping for him and he was running against someone who most people thought was going to be a shoe-in.
CBS’s Tracy Smith on the The Early Show, February - again, so what? people were flocking to see him. he was generating record crowds in the square states in the middle of the country - blowing the doors off Hillary’s campaign. if the media didn’t report people’s reaction, that would be biased.
meanwhile … you have Chris Matthews swooning over Bush the Lesser when he did his Great Flightsuit Caper:
MATTHEWS: What’s the importance of the president’s amazing display of leadership tonight? (snip) What do you make of the actual visual that people will see on TV and probably, as you know, as well as I, will remember a lot longer than words spoken tonight? And that’s the president looking very much like a jet, you know, a high-flying jet star. A guy who is a jet pilot. Has been in the past when he was younger, obviously. What does that image mean to the American people, a guy who can actually get into a supersonic plane and actually fly in an unpressurized cabin like an actual jet pilot? (snip) Do you think this role, and I want to talk politically […], the president deserves everything he’s doing tonight in terms of his leadership. He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics. Do you think he is defining the office of the presidency, at least for this time, as basically that of commander in chief? That […] if you’re going to run against him, you’d better be ready to take [that] away from him.
second to Matthews was Wolf Blitzer, mopping his sweaty brow: A little bit of history and a lot of drama today when President Bush became the first commander in chief to make a tailhook landing on an aircraft carrier. A one-time Fighter Dog himself in the Air National Guard, the president flew in the co-pilot seat with a trip to the USS Abraham Lincoln. And he then mingled with the pilots and the crew members of the carrier on its way back from a deployment which covered the war in Iraq and before that, the war in Afghanistan. From that same deck tonight, the president will make more history. He’ll deliver a major address to the nation.
Then there’s Brian Williams: And two immutable truths about the president that the Democrats can’t change: He’s a youthful guy. He looked terrific and full of energy in a flight suit. He is a former pilot, so it’s not a foreign art farm — art form to him. Not all presidents could have pulled this scene off today.
they were also grabbing for the smelling salts at the NYT and WaPo over Bush’s manliness …
your hero, Joe Klein: Well, that was probably the coolest presidential image since Bill Pullman played the jet fighter pilot in the movie Independence Day. That was the first thing that came to mind for me. And it just shows you how high a mountain these Democrats are going to have to climb. You compare that image, which everybody across the world saw, with this debate last night where you have nine people on a stage and it doesn’t air until 11:30 at night, up against Saturday Night Live, and you see what a major, major struggle the Democrats are going to have to try and beat a popular incumbent president.
and let’s not forget Margaret Carlson: A hurricane couldn’t have interfered with that particular parade. It was so well done, and even though we knew that everything was choreographed down to, you know, catching that fourth hook on the ship, it was still a pretty stirring tableau. Cecil B. DeMille couldn’t have been done better. And even though you know there’s no Santa Claus, Christmas is still great, as it was with that particular moment.
you want to play duelling quotes? I can do this all day long. You still cannot deny that the media downplayed all stories that called into question the Administration’s narrative before the war (note the story placement mentioned above).
What makes a news story biased? oh, I dunno. maybe things like clinging to lies that have been disproven (Iraq was involved in 9/11). using phrases “terrorist fist jab” to talk about a high-five type of sign that your political opponent does. having a GOP analysis team for the Democratic convention, but not Democratic analysis team for the GOP convention (CNN). loading up the Sunday morning talk shows with Republicans with maybe a token Democrat. having a panel of GOP men talk about issues like birth control and abortion.
all true examples.
taking a page from the PUMAs … LMBMA (liberal media bias, my a$$)
By Sunshine
November 20, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this
Hey USin-I knew there was no way TOJ, did all that research himself, so with a quick google (since of course he didn’t site where any of his info came from!) I found it is all from: (www. mediaresearch.org) What is so funny is his statement above:
You won’t win this one with opinions of the liberal media by presenting the views of the most liberal of the liberal media.
But of course the real question is do you understand bias when you see it? Do you believe the quotes I have listed to be bias? In fact, for Moyers to say many of the things that you listed shows an extremely biased viewpoint. But like I said, it all depends on what you consider to be bias.
I think you said that you have a journalism degree. Here’s a question. What makes a news story biased?
(And BTW, making a counter point to your point TOJ, is in no way an attack on you personally, I come here to debate and that is all I am doing, so don’t get upset, ok?)
This is what Wiki says about his “unbiased” source:
The Media Research Center (MRC) is a conservative[1][2] content analysis organization based in Alexandria, Virginia, founded in 1987 by L. Brent Bozell III. Its stated mission, according to its website, is “to bring balance and responsibility to the news media”,[1] and the MRC catalogs and reports on what it asserts to be widespread liberal media bias in the United States press.
In their mission to show that there is a “strident liberal bias” [17] in the national news media, the MRC has produced a number of their own analyses and has offerred as evidence the claims that news reporters use the “conservative” or “Republican” label to describe conservatives more often than they label liberals or Democrats,[18] that the media is sympathetic to Communism or “dictators”,[19] that media coverage of global warming is biased in favor of environmentalism,[20], and that the media focuses on covering the negative side of the Iraq war.
The progressive media watch group Media Matters for America has also repeatedly criticized the MRC, charging they view the media “through a funhouse mirror that renders everything—even the facts themselves—as manifestations of insidious bias.” [18] In an editorial piece, Dana Milbank of The Washington Post perceived MRC and MMFA as promoting two opposing viewpoints of the American news media and “devoted almost entirely to attacking the press”.[26]
So yes the question seems to really be: “But of course the real question is do you understand bias when you see it?” TOJ, do you?
By USinUK
November 20, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
The man that had been a anchor for years and years but got caught making things up in order to attack the Republican president.
yet more porkies … Rather didn’t make things up. nice try, though.
By Gale
November 20, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this
Actually, Mara, I must have missed it when I checked CNN. I tend to look to nytimes, sfgate, wapo, wsj for news. I figured if it was real, the liberal press would be screaming about it. It appears the DA is a wacko and the press is beginning to learn about printing before substantiation.
By USinUK
November 20, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this
sunshine -
So yes the question seems to really be: “But of course the real question is do you understand bias when you see it?” TOJ, do you?
evidently not if he’s presenting a legitimate news story (the historian petition) as bias.
new definition of bias: if I don’t like it who cares if it’s a story, who cares if it’s reporting the facts - if I don’t like it, it’s automatically bias.
hooray!!!
By USinUK
November 20, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this
Gale -
It appears the DA is a wacko wackos in Texas??? no!!! (the exception being Austin - what a great town!)
By Sunshine
November 20, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
USin—I knew all the points you tried to site would be torn down as “Liberal Media Bias” even before TOJ responded. Unfortunately I think the point Bruno made the other day is true, to the effect of each of us seek out info to support our points and sometimes ignore the other facts. But it is fun to argue especially when it doesn’t get so nasty! I would be shocked to read the Wiki page of NBC, CBS, CNN and all other Main Stream Media, and see it clearly labeled as “a liberal media organization” or something to that effect. I think we could debate till we are blue in the face if the Media is biased. In my humble opinion, I think the fringe news sites like “mediaresearch.org” or “Salon.com”, ie not the major broadcast networks, are usually MORE biased. There are exceptions (Fox News and MSNBC) but those are known. I agree with you there is NO REASON for the major news organizations to vastly favor one side or the other. Like you said before what would GE get out of favoring the Democrats?
By USinUK
November 20, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this
new definition of bias: “if I don’t like it” — who cares if it’s a story, who cares if it’s reporting the facts - if I don’t like it, it’s automatically bias.
the definition can also be used for “judicial activism” - if it’s a decision I don’t like (such as gay marriage in CA) - then, even if there is a constitutional justification for it, it’s automatically “judicial activism” simply because I don’t like it
By USinUK
November 20, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this
Sunshine -
I knew all the points you tried to site would be torn down as “Liberal Media Bias” even before TOJ responded.
so did I, but I still wasn’t going to let his statement go unaddressed.
I think we could debate till we are blue in the face if the Media is biased. In my humble opinion, I think the fringe news sites like “mediaresearch.org” or “Salon.com”, ie not the major broadcast networks, are usually MORE biased
I wouldn’t cross the street to dope-slap Brent Bozell, so I’m sure as heck not going to read his site (every once in a while, I stumble across his op-eds and the stupid just kills me) … Salon is openly liberal - they embrace it and don’t bother trying to deny it - kinda like Mother Jones (although why they have Camille Paglia on their payroll is still beyond me - GAH!) …
Like you said before what would GE get out of favoring the Democrats?
actually, my point wasn’t that GE favors Dems or the GOP - my point was that corporations are the ones making editorial decisions, not some nebbish liberal guy wearing a tweed jacket with elbow patches.
By The Other Jack
November 20, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this
UsinUk
He refused. They fired him. Of course Bill moyers didn’t like that. right. and the memo they showed that backed Donahue’s story matters not at all to you … am I surprised? not really.
No. What matters to me was that his ratings were through the floor because of the ultra left, nasty, republican attacking nature of his show. He was given an ultimatum. So the ratings don’t matter to you. i know you live in another country, but do you actually still live here on earth, where it takes more than hating Bush to make a living?
Then you try to rationalize all the extremely left view of the WaPo by listing Bob Novack as a shining example of their non-bias. Now that is funny.
And this says it all:
not bias - it was an actual story, whether you like it or not
So what you are telling me is that if it is the truth, it is not biased. So basically, you don’t even understand what constitutes bias in the news. That’s what i thought.
So you list opinions by people like Dan Rather, I list extremely biased statements made by broadcasters on air and your response is : well, its a real story so it can’t be biased. Right. Maybe this is why people with degrees in Journalism are waiting on tables nation wide.
And the comparison of the world’s biggest cartoon idiot to the president is a perfect comparison. This is a waste of time. You wouldn’t know media bias if it hit you in the face.
But then you turn around and list a rare statement by Cris Mathews where he is actually not slaughtering a republican. In your words, what’s wrong with that? So this is what you call bias. Bush was already elected. He had given a good speech. So because Matthews did not pull out the heavy guns and slice him to shreds, you think that is comparable to National News Anchors gushing over a Presidential Candidate.
And then you say this:
What makes a news story biased? oh, I dunno. maybe things like clinging to lies that have been disproven (Iraq was involved in 9/11).
Sorry, I can’t waste the day trying to convince someone who thinks media bias is only media bias if it is not slaughtering a republican.
And BTW, The terrorist Fist Job comment cost a FOX anchor her job and probably her career. That was for making an inappropriate statement. Dan Rather made up a friggin’ story and still claims that he shouldn’t have been fired and since you believe he has enough credibility to list as a sourse, I’m sure you feel the same way. .
You can crow all you want, but you have only proven that you are clueless. You don’t even understand that it is a rare instance when any major news outlet lies. Very rare.
What makes news biased is presenting only one side of a story. it is as simple as that. Complimenting the President after a Speech isn’t biased. It shows Class. Saying a specific presidential candidate make chills run up my leg just might show a certain bias for that CANDIDATE. Do you even know the difference between an elected official and a person running for office? Is there any way that I can make you understand that in a rare instance where a liberal media was treating the president fairly does not constitute media bias while gushing over a candidate in a race where that gushing could change the election and change history is criminally biased?
if your “dueling quotes” are simply a rare instance where very liberal commentators are not attacking a republican as opposed to commentators comparing the president to Willy Coyote, I would say, absolutely. Let’s play. But the problem is that you don’t know the difference. in your book it is the duty of all commentators to attack Republicans and if they are in the least bit complimentary toward a Republican, that shows bias.
You have proven that you don’t even understand what constitutes bias. You have listed extremely liberal sources to prove that extremely liberal news is not biased. You live in that liberal Never Never land where republicans are evil and democrats are saints and if the media says that, it must be true but if the media is not slamming the evil republicans they are biased.
You will never be convinced you are wrong about anything so keep going in that liberal nowhere land where Chis Matthews is a conservative, Phil Donahue should never be questioned about his show format because it is attacking the people you believe should be attacked and Dan Rather has an ounce of credibility.
By The Other Jack
November 20, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this
So you guys are comparing mediaresearch.org to Salon.com.
Jesus. Why am I wasting my time?
One of those sources lists direct quotes. The other is an opinion forum. But of course most people here don’t know the difference between Sean Hannity and News.
And I see that you think that corporations make editorial decisions.
LOL!!
Have a great day, girls. I have better thngs to do with my time.
By USinUK
November 20, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this
So what you are telling me is that if it is the truth, it is not biased.
yes. that is exactly what I am saying. it sounds like you are saying that truth / facts have a liberal bias.
So you list opinions by people like Dan Rather
and Walter Isaacson and Walter Pincus …
Complimenting the President after a Speech isn’t biased. It shows Class.
ah. so, complimenting a Senator giving a major speech at the convention is biased but complimenting a President isn’t. got it.
in your book it is the duty of all commentators to attack Republicans and if they are in the least bit complimentary toward a Republican, that shows bias.
no, in my book, it’s the duty of journalists to present the truth - and to dig if they have to to find it, not just go to the WH press room (whichever party is running it) and dutifully take down the statements from the administration, then report accordingly. their job is to look into the facts behind the assertions and see if they hold water.
a lot like the way I look into YOUR assertions and question their validity.
that’s their job.
By Sunshine
November 20, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this
actually, my point wasn’t that GE favors Dems or the GOP - my point was that corporations are the ones making editorial decisions, not some nebbish liberal guy wearing a tweed jacket with elbow patches—I didn’t mean to misquote you, it is just that the BIG GUYS like you said are owned by MAJOR companies. Huge companies, generally, in my opinion, benefit more from conservative tax policies, and have the money to hire lobbyist and others to help sway politicians to their POV. GENERALLY! I am not saying that they are overly conservative in their news reporting but I don’t see what they would GAIN by being overly liberal. I mean GE would not benefit MORE under Mr. Obama’s tax plan than under Mr. McCain’s, I don’t think from what I have read about the candidates tax philosophy’s.
By Bruno
November 20, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this
See Bruno, USin isn’t the only one who posts links ;-)
Yes, I noticed, Sunshine. I actually consider you to be USinUK “in-training”. Shall we say that you are the “Sean Hannity” to her “Rush Limbaugh”? One day when she is too old and too feeble to type in her posts, the entire responsibility to defend liberalism will fall on your shoulders alone. Who will be your successor is still a mystery, though. I already know that Baby Bruno will be a hard-core conservative, so you and your hubby better get busy next year to help fill the ranks of the next generation’s liberal base! ; > }
By HeeHaw
November 20, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this
Jesus. Why am I wasting my time
probably the most profound thing you have ever said.
Isn’t that kind of a swear word, that kind of usage? Or were you beginning to pray and got sidetracked?
By Bruno
November 20, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this
Actually, Mara, I must have missed it when I checked CNN. I tend to look to nytimes, sfgate, wapo, wsj for news. I figured if it was real, the liberal press would be screaming about it. It appears the DA is a wacko and the press is beginning to learn about printing before substantiation.
Well, so much for the early Christmas present, ladies.
By The Other Jack
November 20, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
USinUk
ah. so, complimenting a Senator giving a major speech at the convention is biased but complimenting a President isn’t. got it.
No apparently, you don’t “got it”. Was Barrack Obama being covered because:
He was a senator.
He was presidential candidate.
Just happened to be in the area.
He’s a really nice guy.
Give it a shot. See if you can get it right.
You are clueless. It is not about telling the truth. it is about telling the whole truth, both sides of the story, not opinions, not comparisons to really dumb cartoon characters, it is about telling the whole truth, the entire story, even if part of the story might not agree with the lastest crap being listed on Salon.com.
Jim Jones gave people hope. He took poor people in off the streets and gave them food when they had none. He taught them that there was a reason to live. Then he used his wisdom and his diplomatic skills to build a Socialist Utopia in the jungles of Giana.
And that’s my completely true, unbiased story about Jim Jones. Does that at least begin to spark a light in that liberal darkness? Could it possibly be that a story can be completely true and yet still be biased? Say it ain’t so.
Is there any way that you just might begin to think that there just might be a little more to bias other than telling the truith?
By Sunshine
November 20, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this
I already know that Baby Bruno will be a hard-core conservative You are probably right, it would be my just desserts! :-) Any child of mine will be hard headed, I know that for sure!
And BTW (yes I am BIASED but yuck!) Shall we say that you are the “Sean Hannity” to her “Rush Limbaugh” :-P* I much more prefer to think maybe I am the Rachel Maddow to her Keith Olbermann , but maybe that is giving us both too much credit. Thanks for being nice and keeping things light! I will try to do the same!
By Bruno
November 20, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this
Unfortunately I think the point Bruno made the other day is true, to the effect of each of us seek out info to support our points and sometimes ignore the other facts.
So what you are telling me is that if it is the truth, it is not biased.
yes. that is exactly what I am saying. it sounds like you are saying that truth / facts have a liberal bias.
USinUK—You are a very smart lady. As such, I’m sure you’re aware that every “news” story has a built-in political bias which guides the selection of which “facts” are included, and which are excluded. The bottom line is that the glass is actually both half-full and half-empty, all at the same time, so it is up to the discretion of individual writers how they wish to report it.
By Mara
November 20, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this
What makes news biased is presenting only one side of a story. it is as simple as that.
Seems like the “he said - she said” philosophy of news reporting. The facts don’t matter as long as you have “balance”.
It seems silly to think that in order to present an “unbiased” article on, say, the shape of the Earth, you’d have to present the views of the Flat Earthers as equal in weight and veracity with that of eye witnesses (those who’ve traveled to space and personally viewed the spherical body), mathematicians, geologists and other assorted scientists.
Giving nut-jobs a forum for their nuttery and pretending it’s worthy of serious consideration is NOT “unbiased” reporting, it’s not good journalism, and it’s a disservice to those who look to the media for factual information.
Why am I wasting my time?…I have better thngs to do with my time.
well FINALLY. It’s taken far, far too long for you to realize that your vast talents, your immense intellect, and your rapier wit could be put to better use elsewhere. Allow me to be the first to wish you good luck in your future endeavors.
~~ waves ~~
Buh-bye, now.
By Bruno
November 20, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this
Jim Jones gave people hope. He took poor people in off the streets and gave them food when they had none. He taught them that there was a reason to live. Then he used his wisdom and his diplomatic skills to build a Socialist Utopia in the jungles of Giana.
Truth—that would have been one of your best posts ever if you hadn’t included an insult to USinUK. In case you haven’t seen it, the movie “Jonestown” gives a very chilling account of what actually went on down there in the jungles of Guyana.
Another story which lends itself to “naturally biased” reporting is the incident in Waco, Texas many years ago involving David Koresh and the Branch Davidians. Most people remember it as a story about a deranged, self-appointed religious leader who was rightfully brought down by the government. To anti-government groups, however, it is more a story of how the ATF, in a bid to bring more attention/funding to itself, took unnecessary and illegal actions which resulted in the deaths of many, many innocent people. The “whole truth” of course, lies somewhere in between.
By Gale
November 20, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this
I confess!! I am personally responsible for all news bias, both right and left! Can we talk about something else?
By Sunshine
November 20, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this
OK boys you win! It seems your point is the whole world is “liberally biased”. No Republican candidate, President or person with a conservative POV will ever have his voice heard! I just don’t buy that the facts are biased. But you think as you will. It seems a shame to walk around with all that distrust. Do you truly believe every news organization everywhere has an overt agenda to take down the GOP? Yes there is perspective on any event, but that is just human nature. Look at eye witness accounts of crimes, people rarely get all the facts right. But that the whole media, the world over and specifically in the US is out to ‘get’ the Republicans? Ok, yeah, we are all just naive, dumb little simpletons b/c we don’t think ALL media is out to get ALL Republicans.
By Bruno
November 20, 2008 1:20 PM | Link to this
It seems silly to think that in order to present an “unbiased” article on, say, the shape of the Earth, you’d have to present the views of the Flat Earthers as equal in weight and veracity with that of eye witnesses (those who’ve traveled to space and personally viewed the spherical body), mathematicians, geologists and other assorted scientists.
Unfortunately, Mara, you just showed some bias in your example. Which “view” of the Earth we choose to use is more of a function of what purpose we are addressing rather than a function of some Absolute Truth. In a local setting, the “curvature” of the Earth is miniscule, such that we do, in fact, consider the Earth to be “flat” as we go about our daily business. Obviously, when considering long-distance travel, the spherical nature of the Earth does then need to be included in our calculations.
In the same way, a “geocentric” view of our solar system is extremely useful because, as Earth-bound observers, it appears that, in fact, we ARE motionless while the rest of the Universe spins around us. SO, in the end, it’s still a matter of “perspective”, even when discussing apolitical subjects such as astronomy.
By The Other Jack
November 20, 2008 1:23 PM | Link to this
Bruno
Truth—that would have been one of your best posts ever if you hadn’t included an insult to USinUK.
Gosh, thanks bruno.
Did you see this?
right. and the memo they showed that backed Donahue’s story matters not at all to you … am I surprised? not really.
That was the first time her hands touched the keyboard this morning. I though insults were the standard that she had already set. I see Hee Haw came on with yer basic, “get TOJ” attack, but again, strangely enough you only say something to me.
I know that you mean well, but if you are going to set yourself up as the hall monitor, you need to yell at all the kids or the kids you do yell at will just laugh at you.
By Sunshine
November 20, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this
Mara! Excellent point from your 1:01! You might have to share the Tiara with USin!
well FINALLY. It’s taken far, far too long for you to realize that your vast talents, your immense intellect, and your rapier wit could be put to better use elsewhere. Allow me to be the first to wish you good luck in your future endeavors.
CAN I PLEASE SECOND THIS!!! Smooches and Bon Voyage!
By The Other Jack
November 20, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this
Mara
It seems silly to think that in order to present an “unbiased” article on, say, the shape of the Earth, you’d have to present the views of the Flat Earthers as equal in weight and veracity with that of eye witnesses (those who’ve traveled to space and personally viewed the spherical body), mathematicians, geologists and other assorted scientists.
If the story was about a disagreement between the flat earth people and people of science, yes, bioth sides wouold need to be presented. But just a story about the shape of the earth, no.
Again, i’m not trying to convince anyone to be a Republican. but just try to consider that unless all sides that are being discussed are presented, it is biased.
By Bruno
November 20, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this
Giving nut-jobs a forum for their nuttery and pretending it’s worthy of serious consideration is NOT “unbiased” reporting, it’s not good journalism, and it’s a disservice to those who look to the media for factual information.
Mara, PLEASE don’t tell me that you were a journalism major in college as well! ; > }
But that the whole media, the world over and specifically in the US is out to ‘get’ the Republicans? Ok, yeah, we are all just naive, dumb little simpletons b/c we don’t think ALL media is out to get ALL Republicans.
Sunshine, I’m not sure if that’s what TOJ believes, but I don’t see it that way. Individual news outlooks often show consistent bias over time, e.g. FOX on the right and CNN on the left. That’s all. Prior to FOX, however, there were almost no newspapers or TV shows which presented a “right-leaning” perspective. I see that as a function of the fact that people who are attracted to news-reporting as a profession are typically liberal, as reflected by the voting patterns of journalists as a group. BTW, nice try at using the “Horse Laugh Fallacy” to prove your point. ; > }
By Sunshine
November 20, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this
Bruno, darling: Unfortunately, Mara, you just showed some bias in your example. Which “view” of the Earth we choose to use is more of a function of what purpose we are addressing rather than a function of some Absolute Truth. In a local setting, the “curvature” of the Earth is minuscule, such that we do, in fact, consider the Earth to be “flat” as we go about our daily business. Obviously, when considering long-distance travel, the spherical nature of the Earth does then need to be included in our calculations.
Ok, I am just speechless. This mind twisting logic is just NOT TRUE! Because you disregard a fact b/c you do not have the perspective to see it does not make the FACT UNTRUE! This is crazy talk!! The earth is ROUND period. Weather or not you can “see” the curvature of the earth doesn’t make it any less round!!! Come on tell me you are just playing devil’s advocate here! Restore my faith :->
By Bruno
November 20, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this
I know that you mean well, but if you are going to set yourself up as the hall monitor, you need to yell at all the kids or the kids you do yell at will just laugh at you.
I don’t waste my time on sideline snipers like Hee-Haw (Chilao), because there’s no hope for him. You, I still remain hopeful for. Before you hit the “post” button, please re-read your posts and scan for unnecessary anger and insults, and your points will be much better received. If angry banter is your schtick, you might find better company over at Jim Wooten’s blog. For better or worse, this is a woman’s blog, so we need to be polite toward the ladies AMAP.
You have a lot to say, TOJ. Stop messing it up with the insults. If you are looking for acknowledgement that your arguments are valid, you’re not going to get it here. If you can accept that in advance, you’ll get along much better with everyone.
By Mara
November 20, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
Gale - Can we talk about something else?
How about ANTM? I was a bit disappointed that McKey won. I think her look is too hard-edged for her to be a “easy, breezy, beautiful Cover Girl”. Analeigh, who got eliminated out of the top three, seemed to be a much better fit for a mainstream cosmetic company.
or how about noting that yesterday was World Toilet Day? The WTO (World Toilet Organization) is a global non-profit organization committed to improving toilet and sanitation conditions worldwide. The founder advocates world discontinuation of “flush toilets, and a conversion to “dry toilets”. Yeah, really. Google it.
or this -
On Oct. 14, 2008, Salon published an article about the deaths of Army Pfc. Albert Nelson and Pfc. Roger Suarez. The Army attributed their deaths in Iraq in 2006 to enemy action; Salon’s investigation, which included graphic battle video and eyewitness testimony, indicated that their deaths were likely due to friendly fire.
After Salon published Benjamin’s Oct. 14 report, the Army ordered soldiers to shred documents about the men. As proof that they were ordered to destroy the paperwork, a soldier saved some examples and provided them to Salon.
to go to the article add the http and www to — salon.com/news/feature/2008/11/20/friendly_fire/
By k
November 20, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this
I never rely on one source of news, nor one type of news source. I actively seek information from a variety of local, national, international, print, internet, and television media. (Radio, not so much.) Sure, I enjoy some more than others, but I make a point to visit the sources I DIS-trust at least two or three times a week. As such, I feel confident in asserting my conclusions on media bias:
None of them are living up to the expectations of their journalism professors. (In fact, many of them never even studied journalism, and have no clue that it’s supposed to be fact-based and objective.) “Info-tainment” is a more appropriate term than “news” most of the time. The egregious practice of presenting HALF the story in 20 seconds, followed by 4.5 minutes of telling us how to feel about the half-story we just heard, is the standard on the Fox “news” channel in every time slot, and is common on MSNBC. Former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough (MSNBC’s Morning Joe) attempts to bring balance to his broadcasts via a variety of guests, but they still spend more time spinning three or four facts than presenting the dozen we should have about any story. Wolf Blitzer has turned softball questions into an art form. Anderson Cooper’s love of sensational graphics depletes his otherwise decent credibility, Nancy Grace and Glen Beck left the deep end years ago, and no wh-re is a bigger wh-re than the wh-re Greta Van Sustren. The big three networks walk a fine line between trying to be objective professionals and trying (TOO hard, IMO) to not upset the delicate balance of information flow and access to the people in Washington they should be holding accountable. Katie Couric was the only one with the stones to admit that her corporate-controlled management (at NBC) mandated soft-balling Bush & Co on the Iraq war (probably because she’s at another network now) but WE ALL SAW THEM DO IT. The uber-celebrated Tim Russert was a Van Sustren level wh-re, and the post-mortem soliloquoys about what an honest, tough, hard-nosed interviewer he was made me (and no doubt Dick Cheney who basically told him he wasn’t going to answer his bleeping real questions, now throw another softball before you get hurt) LAUGH OUT LOUD. In fact, I speculate that the Lord “called him home” to answer for his complicity in the deaths of 4,000 American soldiers because he would not do his job and demand the truth.
If you really want to be informed: READ, vary your sources, verify claims across sources, and watch CSPAN regularly, where you can witness your government without sound bites or some a-hole telling you want to think or feel. That’s the way I see it, and I’ve been paying attention. Your filters may vary.
By Bruno
November 20, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this
Ok, I am just speechless. This mind twisting logic is just NOT TRUE! Because you disregard a fact b/c you do not have the perspective to see it does not make the FACT UNTRUE! This is crazy talk!! The earth is ROUND period. Weather or not you can “see” the curvature of the earth doesn’t make it any less round!!! Come on tell me you are just playing devil’s advocate here! Restore my faith :->
I know it may be a stretch for you to understand where I’m coming from with this example, but let me explain it this way: Our human brain only has the ability to “see” 3 spatial dimensions. Does that mean that there ARE only 3 spatial dimensions, which underlies statements such as “the Earth is spherical”? No, it doesn’t. As such, from a “higher dimensionsl” perspective, which we unfortunately can’t “see” or “experience” in any way, the Earth, in fact, is NOT spherical. From a “fourth-dimensional” perspective, I can’t tell you what it appears to be. From a “two-dimensional” perspective, I CAN tell you what it appears to be: flat.
Before you sweep all of these explanations under the rug as “crazy talk”, you might wish to investigate the ideas of Albert Einstein more closely. Though he couldn’t “see” the fourth dimension, Einstein postulated that there is a “fourth-dimensional” space-time continuum, which led to extremely accurate calculations of the passage of time while in motion. Briefly, time passes by more slowly the faster we go. At the relatively slow speeds we Earth-travelers usually travel at, the discrepancy is so minor that we don’t consider it when calculating travel times, and thus view time as a linear function, though, factually speaking, it isn’t.
For a simpler perspective of what I’m talking about, you may want to read the classic book, “Flatland”, which delves more deeply into multi-dimensional realities.
Gotta run.
By Bruno
November 20, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this
So, in a nutshell, I think that Mara is showing extreme bias toward “two-dimensional” thinkers. ; > }
By Gale
November 20, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this
Bruno, it is not a woman’s blog. That only refers to the women on the page header. What we need is to be polite to both sides. Other than that, thanks for being the hall monitor today. You comment about rereading the post before clicking the button is perfect. I cannot tell you how many times I read what I have written and deleted the whole thing. TOJ does often make good posts when he is not ranting. It is the rants that are not well received. I have been inthe minority view from time to time. I just has to accept that everyone will not always believe as I do.
I see that as a function of the fact that people who are attracted to news-reporting as a profession are typically liberal, as reflected by the voting patterns of journalists as a group.
I like this comment. This is likely the basis of what the conservatives see most. Try as they must, all people are biased by what they believe at their core.
By The Other Jack
November 20, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this
Bruno,
Sorry pal. i’m not going to go out of my way to write a nice, civil post and then when the response is one pointed insult after another, continue being nice.
As per normal, i have again been very civil to Mara and she insults me. I’m not crying over the insults. They are expected. These liberal woman easily get furious that anyone would dare disagree with them. If the blog is destined to be a hen house where there is more cackling about those mean old men then discussion about politics, then the ajc should start kicking us out.
It appears to me that the women want to be respected for their opinions, not their gender. I don’t mind that. I say gender out the window. If they can prove a point by remaining civil let them. I haven’t seen it in a very long time.
Don’t expect me or anyone else to respect an opinion of a person based on their intelligence and then when they get abusive and attack me, take into consideration their gender. I thought this was a political blog, not a spring catillian.
By Mara
November 20, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this
Bruno - PLEASE don’t tell me that you were a journalism major in college as well!
LOL! Nope, just an arm-chair news junkie.
Prior to FOX, however, there were almost no newspapers or TV shows which presented a “right-leaning” perspective
uh, that’s not right. There are/were plenty of print media that catered to conservative views.
I would also point out to you that until Ronald Reagan’s FCC revoked the fifty-year-old Fairness Doctrine, op/ed pages and opinion statements on television or radio news were required to present the opposing view. Perhaps there were no conservative tv shows etc because there were no ‘liberal’ shows either. If you presented a liberal story, you had to provide resources for it to be rebutted, thus ensuring that legitimate differences of opinion were broadcast. Same with views that leaned conservative.
Of course now, with all the information sources we have available, the Doctrine is kinda archaic and unnecessary. Though I have to admit that having choice in the news we consume, (as opposed to when there were only four channels to choose from on television) there’s a great chance that we end up cocooning ourselves in a media world where everyone agrees with us and we are fed stories that are deliberately slanted to benefit the source.
By Sunshine
November 20, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this
Bruno, You may think I don’t have the ability to understand what you are saying but I simply don’t agree with your argument. You disproved your own statement in your back up response. Because we can’t see something does not make it untrue. As Mr. Einstein stated, just like microscopic organisms, just like oxygen. It is not our ability to see it that makes it a fact or not. That is simply the limitations of the human body. And if our senses are the only “truth” than god help us all!
Mara’s point was you don’t give equal time and weight to people who don’t think the earth is flat when it is not. Just because these people have had a limited exposure to the facts is the reason they hold these views. If they had the opportunity to see the earth in 3D would they still cling to the “Fact” that it is flat? Maybe, but they would be wrong before they saw the earth from space and ALSO after they saw the earth from space. Facts are facts, you may want to argue higher functions of perceptions but that is beside the point. You have a blue car, that drove from point A to Point B, it hit Mrs Jones when it collided with Point B. Mrs. Jones is now dead from the impact of the blue car. You can give accounts of the events, what people saw, ect. but the facts remain, she is not any less dead because of what the people “saw”. It is the whole if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it does it make a sound. The answer is yes. The sound wave is made even if no one receives it.
By Sunshine
November 20, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this
Should be: Mara’s point was you don’t give equal time and weight to people who think the earth is flat when it is not. (no DON’t) sorry!
By Mara
November 20, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this
TOJ - i have again been very civil to Mara and she insults me.
I insulted you?! What did I say? What!? Was it when I said you had a superior intellect? Or when I noted your vast talents and rapier wit? Was it the wave guh-bye? It was, wasn’t it? It was the waving good-bye that insulted you. Dang!
And after I really, really tried to keep all my fingers verticle, too.
By Mara
November 20, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this
in the end, it’s still a matter of “perspective”
Hey, Bruno. Didn’t we argue about this a while back? Wasn’t it my contention that “truth” is subjective while you argued that “facts is facts”? LOL!
what is it that they say? “Consistancy is the quality of a stagnant mind”?
By Mara
November 20, 2008 2:57 PM | Link to this
Sunshine - Mara’s point was you don’t give equal time and weight to people who think the earth is flat when it is not
exactly. :^)
By Gale
November 20, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this
ANTM? Mara? I am certainly out of the loop on that one. If ewe ever get a topic of conservation, dry toilets would be an excellent topic. People do not give the problem of fresh water nearly the importance it deserves.
k, In a world of biased opinion, you give sound advice. Get your news from many sources. I confess I will need to widen my searches from the usual suspects. I don’t know that I will be able to include the very conservative sites, though. There is only so far I can bend.
By Gale
November 20, 2008 3:35 PM | Link to this
Good grief! My fingers are all over today. not ewe, but we. Sorry. I promise to proof read.
By Sunshine
November 20, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this
Gale—I don’t know that I will be able to include the very conservative sites, though. There is only so far I can bend. If I may humbly suggest to try to ALWAYS read the most conservative sites. It gives great insight into the other side of the argument and I almost always learn something, even if it is a set of facts or a back story that I had not seen before, and I sometimes feel is unrelated, it helps me see, and usually helps me define my views more clearly. Just my two cents ;-)
Oh and ANTM = America’s Next Top Model, I had to google that one too!
By Bruno
November 20, 2008 4:12 PM | Link to this
LOL! Nope, just an arm-chair news junkie.
Thank God—My respect for you is restored!
Hey, Bruno. Didn’t we argue about this a while back? Wasn’t it my contention that “truth” is subjective while you argued that “facts is facts”? LOL!
Now I really feel sorry for your husband, having to deal with that kind of memory. Actually, if I recall correctly, we were discussing the difference between reality and our perceptions of reality, and not so much “truth” vs. “non-truth”, though, on the surface, they appear to be the same animal. The example I brought up was that if you jump in front of a moving bus, you will become roadkill, regardless of what your perception of the situation is. As per our lack of perception of multiple dimensions, I think that it does come into play in terms of our lack of ability to explain things like ESP.
what is it that they say? “Consistancy is the quality of a stagnant mind”?
I like that one, Mara.
By The Other Jack
November 20, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this
Mara
The fairness doctrine never had any power because it was impossible to enforce. And it was also only for controversial issues where any news story could be used in court as evidence. It wasn’t for every story. It quickly became a legal basis for some pretty silly lawsuits.
An example which is given in Wikipedia is: In the early 1970s, George Takei ran for a seat on the Los Angeles City Council. Takei was well known for his portrayal of Mr. Sulu on the television series Star Trek. His opponent cited the Fairness Doctrine and demanded that Los Angeles television stations either provide him with free advertising, or remove Star Trek from the air.
So it was almost never used except for lawsuits that had no merit.
There are also lots of issues concerning FCC licensing, something that only radio and TV requires so while the government technically could have forced a TV station to present the opposing views, that effect would or could have been negated by a biased story in a newspaper, so the doctrine had no real power.
It was repealed because it had never been able to be used in court for the purpose which it was originally drafted and it had the potential to clog the courts with lawsuits that could not set precedent because of the variance in the required evidence.
So while it makes a great statement on a liberal leaning blog that Ronald Reagan repealed that law, the fact is that a President cannot repeal laws.
from Wikipedia In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a different panel of the Appeals Court for the the D.C. Circuit in February 1989.[11] The FCC stated, “the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters … [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists,” and suggested that, because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional.
Since 1987 there have been several attempts reviving the doctrine, but limited only to radio, where conservatives seem to have an advantage. It is an FCC doctrine so if it is reenacted, it MUST also apply to television and that is not about to happen with the Democrat’s almost total donmination of the television airwaves.
Now you can check my facts by going to a couple of web sites or the next time you go to a restaurant, just ask your waiter. Chances are, they have a degree in Journalism.
Mara, you have a real nice night.
By Bruno
November 20, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this
It is not our ability to see it that makes it a fact or not. That is simply the limitations of the human body. And if our senses are the only “truth” than god help us all!
In a more general sense, Sunshine, something exists only if we can somehow measure it. As such, we will always have limited access to the “whole truth” simply based on the limitations of our measuring devices. Through the electron microscope, we can “see” things such as molecular structures that we previously could only hypothesize about. Currently, we speak of “sub-atomic particles”, but they will forever remain a theoretical construct due to the limitations of our “macroscopic” measuring devices.
Just because these people have had a limited exposure to the facts is the reason they hold these views. If they had the opportunity to see the earth in 3D would they still cling to the “Fact” that it is flat?
Again, to a creature who can perceive 4 dimensions, they would similarly laugh at our “silly” three-dimensional “truths”. You shouldn’t be so quick to discount the importance that “perspective” has on things.
It is the whole if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it does it make a sound. The answer is yes. The sound wave is made even if no one receives it.
Sorry, hon, but you are assuming that there exists some completely “objective” perspective by which one of “Maxwell’s Demons” can verify that sound waves were created. One of Einstein’s biggest leaps of imagination occurred when he started from the POV that NO one perspective is more objective than any other.
More importantly, I want to know this: IF a man speaks, and there is no woman present to tell him he is wrong, is he still just as wrong?? ; > }
By Journalism Major
November 20, 2008 4:36 PM | Link to this
I see that some people are of the opinion that my course of study makes me unworthy of respect, regardless of how I apply this knowledge in the real world. Noted.
By Bruno
November 20, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this
Bruno, it is not a woman’s blog.
You may be technically correct on that point, Gale, but pity the fool who comes on here and riles up the regular lady posters! Like they say, when momma’s not happy, nobody is happy.
By The Other Jack
November 20, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this
K
^Nancy Grace and Glen Beck left the deep end years ago, and no wh-re is a bigger wh-re than the wh-re Greta Van Sustren^
Not a bad post, but you have to learn the difference between political pundits and news people. Greta Van Sustrine in the anchor of a political opinion show as is (:was, soon to be again) Glen Beck, and the same applies to Nancy Grace, Sean Hannity, Bill ORielly, etc.
In today’s world, sometimes it is a thin line between political opinion and news, but if a person has a show with their name as the primary element of the name of the show, chances are, it is a show about their opinion. If the title is something like “The NBC Nightly News, with Brian Williams, it is probably a news show.
By The Other Jack
November 20, 2008 4:48 PM | Link to this
Journalism Major
If I had no respect for the degree, I would have not suggested that Mara consult with a Journalism Major. However I am aware of the glut of journalism majors in our society. Sorry if I hurt your feelings.
So where do you wait tables?
By k
November 20, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this
The Other Jack, thanks. I think you made my point. The expansion of cable TV to include countless channels with 24-hour broadcasting capabilities provides the potential to report vast amounts of news and information. Each of the wh-res I mentioned has an opportunity to contribute to our collective knowledge in amazing ways. Some do. (For example, Anderson Cooper’s brave trek through the snakes and filthy, snake and corpse-infested waters after Katrina gave us an eye view of what we otherwise could not have imagined.) And yet, they sit there night after night, wasting hour after hour regurgitating the same half stories and the same sensationalized manufactured outrage… blah blah blah. Gretta spent months (years?) in Aruba, spitting out lame teasers every evening so we’d tune in for the “very latest” on the Holloway kid. What could she or might she have reported to us in all those hundreds of hours? I’m tired of getting 20% fact and 80% opinion. Cable is no small expense in this day and age, and for a busy, working populace, it’s often the primary means of becoming informed. The wh-res could have chosen to approach their opportunities with more integrity than they have, IMO, and made the world a more informed place instead of an angrier, more cynical one.
By The Other Jack
November 20, 2008 5:01 PM | Link to this
Bruno
You may be technically correct on that point, Gale, but pity the fool who comes on here and riles up the regular lady posters! Like they say, when momma’s not happy, nobody is happy.
I see that as a very sexist remark. Again, I know you mean well, and there is no doubt that in this case you are dead on accurate, but that seems to say that we look at their gender before we look at their intellect.
I think some of these women demand that we look at their gender as long as they want to be excused for rudeness and bad behavior and then forget their gender when they want to be respected for their opinion.
This is a common trait among a lot of American women and I never mind playing along if it is someone I know, like and respect. But I don’t know these women and chances are, if I did know them and they acted like they do on here, they would be a very distant acquaintance.
Not to say I don’t respect their opinions. I do and I learn a lot here, but I have no reason to excuse bad behavior because they are women.
By Bruno
November 20, 2008 5:05 PM | Link to this
I see that some people are of the opinion that my course of study makes me unworthy of respect, regardless of how I apply this knowledge in the real world. Noted.
Just teasing you, JM. I have as much respect for you as you do for me.
By The Other Jack
November 20, 2008 5:18 PM | Link to this
k
Gretta spent months (years?) in Aruba, spitting out lame teasers every evening so we’d tune in for the “very latest” on the Holloway kid.
But that’s greta’s show. it’s not a news show any more than Entertainment Tonight is a news show. Her show is about lame teasers and sensational stories.
However, I get sick of these kinds of stories showing up in “legitimate” news. So I think we are on the same page as far as those kinds of stories. It’s like that trend of pretty woman disappearances. Lacy Peterson (I’m ashamed that I remembered the name) is the perfect example. How many poor women disappeared from trailer parks or inner city ghettos while the world mourned pretty little Lacy? (She was a cutie)
But don’t go to Greta expecting news. She used to be news and so did most of the pundits, but it’s all about opinion, now. Real news isn’t as bad as it used to be about this kind of stuff so just stay away from the opinion shows on FOX and CNN after 8PM.
By USinUK
November 21, 2008 8:11 AM | Link to this
Okay, I haven’t quite scrolled around enough to know who said this, but I gotta say, THIS gave me my laugh of the day so far:
Prior to FOX, however, there were almost no newspapers or TV shows which presented a “right-leaning” perspective
baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha …
have you never heard of writer William Safire?
have you never heard of William F. Buckley - not only did he host his own TV show, he also founded The New Republic.
have you never heard of the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, the New York Sun (so sadly, out of business now), the Boston Herald, the Weekly Standard, the American Spectator, the Houston Chronicle, the Denver Post …
… no conservative media before FOX … (still chuckling)
By USinUK
November 21, 2008 8:12 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
However, I get sick of these kinds of stories showing up in “legitimate” news. So I think we are on the same page as far as those kinds of stories. It’s like that trend of pretty woman disappearances. Lacy Peterson (I’m ashamed that I remembered the name) is the perfect example. How many poor women disappeared from trailer parks or inner city ghettos while the world mourned pretty little Lacy? (She was a cutie)
am sooooooooooooooooo in agreement with you on that one …
By USinUK
November 21, 2008 8:15 AM | Link to this
Bruno -
I actually consider you to be USinUK “in-training”. Shall we say that you are the “Sean Hannity” to her “Rush Limbaugh”?
there aren’t enough chocolate chip cookies in the world for you to make up for comparing me to Rush. you seriously need to apologize for that one.
By USinUK
November 21, 2008 8:35 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
“right. and the memo they showed that backed Donahue’s story matters not at all to you … am I surprised? not really” … That was the first time her hands touched the keyboard this morning. I though insults were the standard that she had already set.
criminey, child, if you’re going to lie, at least do it a little better than that … what I wrote was a response to your post on the same day (which was a response to my second post) … so, it was at least the 3rd or 4th post.
No apparently, you don’t “got it”.
no. you obviously don’t. Barak Obama gave a keynote address the night before John Edward’s speech and rocked the house. it was a prime-time national speech and it blew the doors off the place. “The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.”
it was a great speech. it had the crowd on its feet. it deserved every ounce of ink it got - even if he was “just” a Senator so, evidently, didn’t deserve the “classy” response of a compliment.
By k
November 21, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this
USinUK, excellent point at 8:35, and I agree. But sadly, I believe there are people who simply reject the idea of unity. They applauded Bush’s “us and them” division, and happily asserted all along that “you’re either with us or against us.” They’re the ones who attacked the patriotism of anyone and everyone who dared question “The Decider”, or dared suggest that “kill ‘em all and let God sort it out” might not be our best strategy going forward. They’re the ones who continue putting up straw men, welfare queens, and godless heathen baby killers as our enemies, while making excuses for those who subvert the Constitution and lie through their teeth and every legal loophole for fun and profit — the well-being of everyone else be darned. While some of us wept with joy two weeks ago at our nation’s historic milestone, and the prospect of an uplifting “hope” that our divisions are being conquered by an American spirit that truly promotes freedom and opportunity for all, many of them were snarling with resentment that — and let’s be truthful here — that another three percent of their income might be taxed to pay our nation’s way forward through the $10 trillion debt and bankruptcy caused by the greed and lies of THEIR self-affirming, swaggering heroes.
It was a great speech among many, including the election night speech that had me sobbing with beautiful emotions for the first time in ages. How sad that I later awakened to the fact that there are still people in America who’d rather snarl, criticize, divide, and blame, than acknowledge either our need to solve serious problems and move forward, or the possibilities of what we could accomplish if we pull together as a nation. Just my observations.