Right Wing Concocts False Claim That Obama Is Steering Stimulus Money To Areas That Backed Him
Right Wing Concocts False Claim That Obama Is Steering Stimulus Money To Areas That Backed Him
Some right-wing blogs have been pushing a USA Today analysis — which found that counties that supported President Obama in the election are getting more stimulus money, per person, than counties that backed John McCain — to claim that the stimulus is actually “an Obama-supporter-payoff scheme.” Steve Benen noted, though, that the conservatives crowing about this article clearly didn’t read all of it, as it includes these sections:
Much of [the money] has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation…The imbalance didn’t start with the stimulus. From 2005 through 2007, the counties that later voted for Obama collected about 50% more government aid than those that supported McCain, according to spending reports from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Adam Hughes, the director of federal fiscal policy for the non-profit OMB Watch, explained that “it would be almost inconceivable for [the spending imbalance] to be the result of political tinkering.” But did this stop Fox News from picking up the story and promoting it in the exact same way as the right-wing bloggers? No, of course not.
Today, Fox News’ Stuart Varney premised an entire segment on the right-wing’s false claim, and wouldn’t concede the point, even when former Texas Rep. Martin Frost referenced the above sections of the USA Today story. Watch it:
A fair reading of the article supports the simple conclusion that economically-distressed areas voted for Obama.
This is not the first time that Fox has picked up a conspiracy theory from conservative blogs and run with it. But it’s a particularly egregious example since the second paragraph in the referenced article counters the conspiracy. Sean Hannity sent out a tweet about the non-story today.
Cross-posted at The Wonk Room.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
But it’s a particularly egregious example since the second paragraph in the referenced article counters the conspiracy.
Yeah, well, rightwingers are not exactly known for having long attention spans…
July 9th, 2009 at 7:49 pmMuch of [the money] has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation…The imbalance didn’t start with the stimulus.
There’s a shocker, places that have always had their handout from the government backed Obama.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:53 pmThis is part of a larger strategy to blame the chimp’s/repug economic meltdown on him.
Don’t laugh – given the compliance of the mainstream media, they can create an echo chamber and the appearance that there is general agreement this is so.
This is why we need to hold Obama and the dems accountable for creating meaningful change in areas where:
1. They have the political power and numbers to do so
2. That they can move forward without catering to the republicans, clearly demonstrating the differences between them
Unfortunately, I have not seen a wholehearted effort to do either one of these, which will just play in repugs hands.
Biden admits that the economic stimulus and its impact were overestimated and the extend of the economic problems were underestimated. The economy is not going to turn around as quickly as many had hoped.
Obama will need some meaningful achievements so that he can run on YES WE CAN. He does not have an option of running on anything less than that next time.
The administration needs our help – they need hear that progressives expect to see him differentiate himself from the repugs and use the bully pulpit of the White House to create some of the positive changes that the public overwhelmingly supports – like REAL healthcare reform.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:56 pmA lot of Obama’s support comes from urban areas and these areas get a lot of federal dollars. This comes in many forms such as welfare, Medicare, road building, housing, and various other programs to reach the underprivileged. The Republicans like Sarah Palin like to talk about the “real” America which translates to small towns with a homogeneous population that have very few urban problems or the scale of those problems. These urban areas contribute a lot of tax dollars but the neocons like to paint urban areas as “welfare” havens.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:01 pmThe states that have their faces in the public trough, paying in much more than they take out, are almost all REPUG states:
Per Federal Tax Dollar Paid, How Many do states get back? (From Tax Foundation). Repug states in BOLD
New Mexico $2.03
July 9th, 2009 at 8:03 pmMississippi $2.02
Alaska $1.84
Louisiana $1.78
West Virginia $1.76
North Dakota $1.68
Alabama $1.66
South Dakota $1.53
Kentucky $1.51
Virginia $1.51
Montana $1.47
Hawaii $1.44
Maine $1.41
Arkansas $1.41
Oklahoma $1.36
South Carolina $1.35
Missouri $1.32
Maryland $1.30
Tennessee $1.27
Idaho $1.21
Arizona $1.19
Kansas $1.12
Wyoming $1.11
Iowa $1.10
Nebraska $1.10
Vermont $1.08
North Carolina $1.08
Pennsylvania $1.07
Utah $1.07 29
Indiana $1.05
Ohio $1.05
Georgia $1.01
Rhode Island $1.00
Florida $0.97
Texas $0.94
Oregon $0.93
Michigan $0.92
Washington $0.88
Wisconsin $0.86
Massachusetts $0.82
Colorado $0.81
New York $0.79
California $0.78
Delaware $0.77
Illinois $0.75
Minnesota $0.72
New Hampshire $0.71
Connecticut $0.69
Nevada $0.65
New Jersey $0.61
FOOLS NETWORK always peddling packs of lies! It would be funny if it wasn’t dangerous.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:04 pmThe wonderful thing about the FOX/FAUX/FIX philosophy of news reporting is that if you don’t like the story as it is in real life, just make something up!
July 9th, 2009 at 8:08 pmI think you meant:
The states that have their faces in the public trough, paying LESS than they take out, are almost all REPUG states
July 9th, 2009 at 8:08 pmSo let me get this straight: when the stimulus was announced, wingnut governors felt compelled to refuse the funds as a move of political grandstanding.
Once they discovered that did not have the power to refuse, they decided to whine that they weren’t getting as much as the other guys.
Do I have that about right?
July 9th, 2009 at 8:13 pmdixie blood
OOPS – my bad, thanks for correcting. They are the real welfare hogs, TAKING OUT more!
July 9th, 2009 at 8:13 pmJohnM Says:
——————————————————————————–
Much of [the money] has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation…The imbalance didn’t start with the stimulus.
There’s a shocker, places that have always had their handout from the government backed Obama.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Like Alaska and Halliburton ?
July 9th, 2009 at 8:20 pmJohnM what did you think of the list that Another Joe posted?
Don’t you think that has some relevance to the point you’re struggling to make?
July 9th, 2009 at 8:24 pmHow the hoodwinkers project. Halliburton goes from the 17th biggest contractor to getting the biggest federal contract of all time. Its surreal to hear Republicans lecture about money after the mountains of cash they gave away in noncompetitive bidding contracts.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:31 pmIt is stupid to talk of money and COUNTIES, since they vary incredibly by population. If money were evenly divided by COUNTY, then rural Americans (Republicans) would get vastly greater payout than urban Americans (Democrats). The whole methodology is inherently skewed.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:35 pmGee this wouldnt be anything like all the churches who illegally caimpaigned for bush in violtion of IRS rules about tax exempt organizations gettting money from bush’s “faith based” initiatives would it?
July 9th, 2009 at 8:37 pmFOX News loves to salivate about the “effect” and then speculate its cause, even when there is no there there. Facts? They don’t need no stinkin’ facts!
July 9th, 2009 at 8:42 pmGee, john the moron can’t figure out that EVERYONE voted for PRESIDENT Obama! Loser.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:49 pmActually, it is par for the course. Right wing nuts simply manufacture “facts” when no truth exists with which they can make their point. There is no commitment to being factual by them. So, most of us that have been a part of that group for years finally caught on and split from them. Amazing that they keep any followers at all. Just intellectual honesty required me to leave many years ago although my family has voted Republican for years and years.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:52 pmRight Wing Concocts False Claim That Obama Is Steering Stimulus Money To Areas That Backed Him
Any proof he’s not? Let’s follow the money, shall we? Transparency, anyone? Suuuuuure!
July 9th, 2009 at 8:56 pm…
ot but if anyone has any info on this i’d like to hear about it.
i just got an e-mail chain letter with the words
“THIS WAS WRITTEN BY A SOLDIER IN IRAQ.” on the subject line.
i traced it back to craigs list. that’s all i can find out about it so far.
curious.
:|
July 9th, 2009 at 8:57 pmPresident Obama won way more states than John McCain did so it would “APPEAR” that the “blue states” were getting more money, when really, it’s just logistics.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:57 pmmari2RR Says
How long did it take you to come up with that name? LOL!
July 9th, 2009 at 8:57 pmDid anyone see a crazy lady on your tv today wearing waders & tons of makeup rambling on and not making sense?
July 9th, 2009 at 8:59 pmRepublicans Love Facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
mari2RR Says
How long did it take you to come up with that name? LOL!
July 9th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Asks the moronic GOP tool who sports a nearly identical name of someone else here………..
July 9th, 2009 at 8:59 pmRepublicans Love Facts Says:
Right Wing Concocts False Claim That Obama Is Steering Stimulus Money To Areas That Backed Him
Any proof he’s not? Let’s follow the money, shall we? Transparency, anyone? Suuuuuure!
July 9th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
***
innocent until proven guilty.
the burden of proof is on you.
it’s an american principle of
law and justice that fascists
just don’t understand.
***
capice?
:)
July 9th, 2009 at 9:00 pmMCMetal Says:
Republicans Love Facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
mari2RR Says
How long did it take you to come up with that name? LOL!
July 9th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Asks the moronic GOP tool who sports a nearly identical name of someone else here………..
July 9th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
***
one of them is the straw man.
i’m betting it’s rlf.
***
nobody could be that stupid.
:\
July 9th, 2009 at 9:02 pminnocent until proven guilty
Unless they have a (R) after their name, right?
July 9th, 2009 at 9:05 pmI’ve heard that our friend Republicans Love Facts blows goats.
Any proof he doesn’t? Let’s follow the goat droppings, shall we? Bestiality, anyone?
July 9th, 2009 at 9:20 pmSo basically, FOX and Republicans are once again shown to be the lying liars that they are.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:26 pmRight?
Speaking of that lying b!tch Sean Hannity, and that other lying b!tch Crazy Shelly, it’s hard to even count the lies in this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa_J8fc6m2Q
As you can probably guess, the Bill doesn’t mention ACORN, or any other organization besides HUD. The $8.5 billion figure is made up. They lie about the source of the money. They never mention that less than $400 billion of the $700 billion has actually been paid out. And, of course, they neglect to mention that the Bill is for mortgage relief. It’s even called the “TARP for Main Street Act of 2009″ and it’s designed to help victims of the economy avoid foreclosure.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:35 pmblackwidow Says:
So basically, FOX and Republicans are once again shown to be the lying liars that they are.
Right?
Essentially.
Maybe not outright liars in every case, but more than willing to run with a story that’s not researched or fact-checked in order to take a potshot at Obama and therefore attempt to manipulate public opinion in Republicans’ favor. This ain’t the first time….
Seriously, can we just take the “News” part off of their logo?
July 9th, 2009 at 9:40 pmAnyone who has an “R” after their name is a lying bozo.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:47 pmIs there anyone sane enough that matters watching Fox News anymore anyway? And even if this story was real has any county that supported McCain in a the election have any track record for know what is right for its citizenry to do the right thing with stimulus money? Besides, I thought that “socialism” was against their ideals, that is if they have ideals that they didn’t hear from a conservative talking head.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:50 pmRepublicans Love Facts (the straw man) Says:
innocent until proven guilty
Unless they have a (R) after their name, right?
July 9th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
***
no.
***
next.
:)
July 9th, 2009 at 10:02 pmWhat is amazing is that Fox News keeps bringing GOPiggie operatives that do nothing but embarrass themselves and Fox News.
Can’t wait until Moose Boogers gets her comedy show on Fox.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:05 pm.
Because when a Republican Governor steers their Stimulus money AWAY from The People that backed them…
… That’s a good thing?
.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:06 pm.
There’s that good old G(no)P for ya…
… Always driving that wedge in when The People really want it out.
Typical G(no)P talk…
… Always finding that opposition, even if it’s NOT in their best interests.
I can just see the Looney Tunes now…
… Yes it is
… No it’s not
… Yes it is
… No it’s not
… Yes it is
… No it’s not
… NO it is
… Yes it’s not
… No it’s not
… Yes it is
.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:11 pm***
can’t believe the number
who palin and give up.
really surprising.
:\
July 9th, 2009 at 10:14 pm.
FOXPRAVDA baby!!!
.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:15 pmwow! how ’bout that!
chrysler dealerships too!
amazing!
July 9th, 2009 at 10:21 pmThis must be shocking to the Republicans. The thought of crony, no-bid contracts going to the highest campaign bidders over the previous 8 years must have been fleeting.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:33 pmjoe cantwell – i googled that line:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22THIS+WAS+WRITTEN+BY+A+SOLDIER+IN+IRAQ.%22+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
this one caught my eye, without going any deeper:
MilBlogs (Daily Archive)
My suspicion is this was written by a Soldier in Iraq who wanted to see just how outrageous a story he could write and actually get it published. …
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/milblogs/2007/07/20/
it’s not at snopes yet, either…
July 9th, 2009 at 10:36 pmi don’t even want to know what it says, from what i read on the google search…
A month ago they were saying Obama forced only Republican Chrysler dealers out of business.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:40 pmWhat we don’t want to see happen is the economically distressed places remain so during the next wave of growth, or fail to benefit from the stimulus, and still being on the hook for tab. The administration will have to defy conventional methods and not make the richer places richer.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:42 pmLook, it’s really very simple. President Obama has NO control over where the stimulus money goes.
Prove me wrong or STFU
July 9th, 2009 at 10:48 pmBut Biden has oversight and control of the stimulus. Don’t act like a child in need of Ritalin.
July 9th, 2009 at 10:57 pmWhen are the sheeple gonna pick up that all such repub claims are projection. A way of excusing their own actions.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:01 pmActually. Congress appropriated the stimulus. It’s up to the individual states to allocate it. Biden is the liaison between the States and Congress. He can neither order where it’s spent nor refuse an allocation so?
No. Biden is not in “control” of the stimulus.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:07 pmWith the trashin’ they took, it would be HARD to find a real industrial area that didn’t back Obama . . . except those areas that were so “backward” that nothing existed to “stimulate” . . .
July 9th, 2009 at 11:07 pmWith only 11 percent of the stim being used so far, I think it would be real tough to do what the conservatives are promoting,me thinks their tin hats are screwed on to tight again.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:23 pmPublicans appear to be very talented in one area.
Making shit up.
Governing, not so much.
July 9th, 2009 at 11:34 pmthinkcentrist spews: Don’t act like a child in need of Ritalin.
Don’t act like a dipsh!t in need of a clue.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:03 am10% of the current “stimulus” money available and the far lefties are crying for more “stimulus” cash?
July 10th, 2009 at 12:04 amStuart Varney? Rupert Murdock?
What’s American about Fox News?
Sounds like a conspiracy to me!
July 10th, 2009 at 12:06 amJeffy Bovine,
Just get over it and start spewing your other ignorant Fox viewer conspiracies.
Here, Bovine:
George Soros
July 10th, 2009 at 12:14 amGE
ACORN
Hugo Chavez
Fox News…….#1.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:19 amolbermann…….not so much…..
July 10th, 2009 at 12:20 amRepublicans love lies.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:20 amLOL!
Jeffy Bovine and his repressed homosexual obsession with Keith Olbermann.
Oh, Jeffy, can you spell
Senator Al Franken
July 10th, 2009 at 12:25 amA two year old toddler could comprehend the above aggregate.
Wow! How dense and mean can the repugs get? I agree, they bi4ch about the package then b3tch about not receiving enough money in the package.
They gotta keep their greens green and their mistresses happy.
G-R-E-E-D-Y and D-E-A-D-L-Y
July 10th, 2009 at 12:34 amHey TPers don’t let this nonsense distract you too much. We’re about to be under attack in the fall. See: http://www.naturalnew.com/026562_vaccinations_NaturalNews_The_Constitution.html
July 10th, 2009 at 12:39 ampete Says:
Actually. Congress appropriated the stimulus. It’s up to the individual states to allocate it. Biden is the liaison between the States and Congress. He can neither order where it’s spent nor refuse an allocation so?
The money has already been allocated to each state and Biden and Obama have no say in it. The money is sent to the states and there are conditions attached to some of the funds. These conditions preallocate the money to roads and bridges, police, education, unemployment, etc. Each state knows the amount of money they will receive. There is still a lot of the stimulus money that has not been spent. This is because each state needs to submit the appropriate paperwork to document how the money will be spent for approval. This is to prevent fraud. The states receive the money when everything is approved but it takes time for the government, state and federal, to process the paperwork.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:50 amCorrected link:
http://www.naturalnews.com/026562_vaccinations_NaturalNews_The_Constitution.html
Wait for article to download.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:53 amRandomChaos Says:
Look, it’s really very simple. President Obama has NO control over where the stimulus money goes.
Prove me wrong or STFU
Hey RC,
President Obama did put restrictions on the use of the stimulus package. He stated it couldn’t be used to balance the state’s budget. There are other restrictions on how the money should be used. It should be used to stimulate the economy.
From what I heard today, some states are using the money to balance their states’ budgets and are breaking other restrictions concerning the stimulus money.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:16 amI fail to see what the issue is here…
Rethugs have been telling me for a month now that the stimulus money costs jobs. So shouldn’t they be happy that he’s hurting the free loaders that voted for him?
July 10th, 2009 at 1:24 amRepublicans Love to Make Up Facts Says:
NBC News……#1
ABC News……#2
CBS News……#3
Fox News……#4
July 10th, 2009 at 1:51 amReggie Says:
Republicans Love to Make Up Facts Says:
Fox News…….#1.
NBC News……#1
ABC News……#2
CBS News……#3
Fox News……#4
July 10th, 2009 at 1:51 am
***
reggie,
even though you are me
(or am i you?)
you’re a genius man!
:)
July 10th, 2009 at 2:07 amLying liars and the lies they perpetrate
July 10th, 2009 at 2:49 amThese Repukelicans only proves and justify how stupid the people they represent really are. This doesn’t surprise me given that the GOP is deliberately trying to sabotage President Obama.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:27 amAs the aborted Republican Reich (2000-2006) taught us, Republicans are partisan to the point of treason. They automatically think Democrats are the same as they and would act the way they would in a given situation.
That’s why we get these incredibly off-the-wall theories abot how liberals behave. They’re not called wingnuts for nothing.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:33 amfelony odometer
July 10th, 2009 at 5:37 amwow items for sale
model no.dvp-s560d
sonicgamescom
yugiohcardgame
crazygamemonkey.com
toner
blackberry tour verizon
tom and jerry games
hyatt hotel boycott
cavs trade rumors
mountain man knives
youngasiansex
verizon blackberry tour
sweet devon
gammes tom and jerry
cytherea
bravonude
free wow account
sprint tour
cash books for cerebral palsy
ba promotional code
smokey mountain knife works
request home catalogue design in the usa
uno online play
onlydudes
driving while intoxicated attorney or la
audience response system dubai
onlydudes.
m d helicopters
mets trade rumors
hasni mp
phoenix magiician
electric ukulele
ba promotion code
cherry van prunus avium
uline boxes buy back
internet special
bsp
uno online
lawyer for t in the park
compare the market
rum recipe
hello kitty agame
picturesex
weightwatchers atworketools
british airways promotion code
tamilnude
power inductors universal applications
freebasketballgame
lezsex
who is the best eyelid surgeon in michig
kinkcarmen
upvc double glazed windows india
funneygames
picasso software
are musical patch cables screened
sprint blackberry
tamagotchi town
google video
sprint blackberry tour
uno online game
cavs rumors
boost mobile
british airways promotional code
interior decorator catalogue
online related links
nude mujra
spadroon sword
scooter ramps for cars
jesse james hollywood
saas billing ipapplications case study
goldiehawnnude
scac code list
circuit city locations
Let’s see now. The Republicans are lying about the Obama administration buying votes/rewarding voters by sending more money to counties that voted for Obumble and his bumbling hordes, and the proof of the Republican lies is that these counties have been receiving more money from the feds for years, not just during the brief disaster of the Obumble administration. Do I have that part right? And yet the states that voted for conservatives receive more money from the feds than do the states that vote for liberals. Got that right, too? And you wonder why we call you idiots?
July 10th, 2009 at 7:58 amBy the way, we do want to thank you idiots for Obumble. By the end of his disaster, no liberal will be able to be elected dogcatcher in Lower East Fumbuck, CA. Also by the way, have any of you idiots noticed how well a state totally dominated by liberal idiots like the aforementioned CA does when left to its own devices? What is it, $24 billion in the hole? Whereas Texas, dominated by conservatives and with no state income tax, actually has a budget surplus every year. Hmm. Maybe conservatives know some things liberal idiots don’t?
drexel, your drivel is wrong
but thanks for playing
July 10th, 2009 at 8:38 amThis is just hoe all politicians, Republican or Democrat, keep the sheep voting for them…
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/
July 10th, 2009 at 8:51 amDreck-selll says:
Also by the way, have any of you idiots noticed how well a state totally dominated by liberal idiots like the aforementioned CA does when left to its own devices? What is it, $24 billion in the hole? Whereas Texas, dominated by conservatives and with no state income tax, actually has a budget surplus every year. Hmm. Maybe conservatives know some things liberal idiots don’t?
Typical republican liar. First off, CA is filled with conservatives, Yes, SF is in CA, but who do you think elected Arnold? Or Reagan? Or Issa? Or Jerry Lewis? Ever been to Bakersfield? Or San Diego? And it’s those people who passed highly restrictive Propositons that have put CA in the hole, it’s in. It’s funny you bring up Texas: Texas, through Enron, tried to bankrupt CA through price gouging on energy….idiot.
July 10th, 2009 at 8:53 amThis is one of my favorite websites for laughing at the comments.
Liberals bend over backwards to try to prove that they are better than Conservatives (either Democrat or Republican), yet virtually ALL of the NAME CALLING, and poor behavior come from the Liberals. The Liberals act EXACTLY like what they think the Conservatives act like.
Reason # 10,673 as to why I am not a Liberal.
Obama is a disaster, folks. Owe up to it Liberals.
July 10th, 2009 at 9:05 amFoxNews is a cable news channel. It is number 1 by far and growing in viewership.
Fox News Channel continued its ratings dominance in the just concluded second quarter. Compared to Q2 ‘08 FNC is up an astonishing 33% among Total Viewers and up 44% in the A25-54 demo in Total Day (Monday-Sunday). In primetime (Monday-Friday) the numbers are even more impressive: up 35% in Total Viewers and up 54% in younger viewers. FNC is on-track to have the highest rated year in the network’s 13 year history.
In primetime, Fox News has more Total Viewers and younger viewers than MSNBC and CNN combined.
source: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/q2_cable_ratings_fnc_dominance_up_across_the_board_10_top_shows_120423.asp
July 10th, 2009 at 9:05 amMore RW-nuttery believing that any government, local, state or federal can survive without spending the money it collects from its citizens, through TAXES.
Wingnut obviously doesn’t even own the trailer where he lives, so he hasn’t heard of that wonderful thing called “property tax”
or the other “sales tax”
And yes, GOPiggies are lying.
July 10th, 2009 at 9:05 amAgain with the B$ of Fox News being # 1.
That is like claiming the Fox outhouse is pine scented.
Just list the line up of morons that “dominate” the demographic:
Baboon Beck, KKKlownnity, and Billdo.
Not one of these clowns deliver actual news, they deliver RW propaganda. Proven OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
July 10th, 2009 at 9:15 amBobwurst says:
Typical republican liar. First off, CA is filled with conservatives, Yes, SF is in CA, but who do you think elected Arnold? Or Reagan? Or Issa? Or Jerry Lewis? Ever been to Bakersfield? Or San Diego? And it’s those people who passed highly restrictive Propositons that have put CA in the hole, it’s in. It’s funny you bring up Texas: Texas, through Enron, tried to bankrupt CA through price gouging on energy….idiot.
Okay, just go with the facts: State Senate – 25 Dem, 15 Rep; Sate Assembly – 51 Dem, 29 Rep. Your good ole Dems OWN the crazy-ass state. nice try. And be careful who you call a liar….might help to have some facts before you spew.
July 10th, 2009 at 9:17 amSince when are DEMS (as in Demagogues) such experts on “facts”? I am amazed at how often a “one-hit headline” (true or not) can turn into some kind of gospel truth that ignores any sense of deeper truth or relevant history.
One of you synonymized “rural” (as opposed to urban) with “Republican”, but that is such a shallow misconception that I should just ignore it. But of course I won’t. May I assume you think that “rural is Rep” because of Kentucky (e.g.) and western ranching states? If that’s the case, try again. North Carolina for one is largely farming (my dad and about 200 relatives were/are all farmers) and they are traditionally Democrats Same with Mississippi, a so-called “Repug” state. But look at the demographics of Mississippi. Also Louisiana. And as this article saw fit to “quote” (point out), typical Obama backers have typically received 50% more aid than McCain backers. Just think about that. Even if a Repub is gov or senator, who are they “representing”? I.e., who are they trying to get their next votes from?
Now let’s compare Fox to the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc, historically Dem-leaning in its reporting (and occasional misreporting), not to mention CBS and Dan Rather — did you forget that he was fired for inventing news?? — and how about the fired Times reporter in 2003-2005? — and how about CNN, which completely misrepresented the Port Security issue in 2005 or 2006 on TV, although their infinintely more obscure online report gave all the real and important facts? And after all of that, I want to scream in someone’s face for ranting about Fox.
But I’m sure I’ve wasted the 5 minutes it took me to write this post, attention spans and memory being what they are, which is to say convenient to the moment.
Btw, NC is one of those unbolded “Dem” states (at all levels of state government) which is spending its “recovery” money (as has been reported this week) on nonrelevant and ineffective line items (i.e., no new jobs at all), while also increasing sales tax another 1% to cover its pathetically irresponsible spending over the past 12 years.
The only Repug I see around here is the repugnant ignorance of people who claim to know so much about everything, while you do nothing more than march and chant to the beat of the jingo-politico-commercials that feed your knee-jerk prejudices.
Like “Think Progress”. Progress toward what exactly???
Speaking of jingo-lingo, it seems like a lot of you are still stuck on Hillary’s ultra-paranoid “right-wing conspiracy” crap from 15 years ago, when (btw) she was not the president, she was just happened to be married (but what a joke that was) to the president. And I’ve been hearing the same kind of paranoia crap in Pelosi and Reid lately. If Reps are supposedly dead, what are they (and you) so worked up about?
PS: I’ll be amazed if this actually posts. I’ve been censored before. Why is that? Let’s see what happens this time.
July 10th, 2009 at 9:26 amAsshnold (R)
Ronass Raygun (R)
Pete Wilson (Racist) (R)
Darrell Issa (R-LOL!)
Tom McClintock (R)
David Dreier (R)
Dana Rohrabacher (R)
Randy ‘Duke’ Cunningham (R) (Corrupt whiner)
Bob Dornan (R)
Did I mention they are/were GOPiggies who do nothing but embarrass themselves?
July 10th, 2009 at 9:29 amImagine THAT!
Dan Rather WAS FIRED FOR INVENTING LIES!
When is Rupert going to fire Billdo for inventing the “Paris Business Review”?
And KKKlownnity or Baboon Beck?
July 10th, 2009 at 9:35 amGary wells, great points about CA.
Bobwurst, I have lived in LA. The only non-Dem-Libs I found were hiding (tucked out of sight) in the small valleys in the Santa Monicas. Liberals own LA. Conservative actors (all 3 or 4 of them) are consistently castigated by many of the ultra-liberal Hollywood powers-that-be. Actually most of the people I met in the LA area were extremely nice (as opposed to your disgusting name-calling), but they were definitely liberal.
PS: Arnold is Republican in name only, a complete mystery to me.
July 10th, 2009 at 9:41 amLOL!
The GOPiggies were also calling the Chimperor Bush “a democrat” “not a real conservative” during his last days in office.
And Mc5th choice. LOL! Same! The “mooverick” was also labeled as “not conservative enough” yet he won the GOPiggie nomination and led you suckers into irrelevance.
TDF!
July 10th, 2009 at 9:50 amjohnny dol1ar: Your response shows your relative ignorance. I would give you a history lesson but it’s almost not worth the trouble. However I’ll just try to remind (or inform) you that he created false reports against Bush and his family, and it created such an uproar against his irresponsibility that CBS was forced to take some kind of action.
I should correct myself: He “retired under pressure” but only from his anchor job. Other people were fired; Rather was just removed from public view as an embarrassment for his false anti-Repub reporting, which I presume you bought, hook, line and sinker. Do you get the point now?
July 10th, 2009 at 9:50 amseattlemark wrote:
This is one of my favorite websites for laughing at the comments.
Liberals bend over backwards to try to prove that they are better than Conservatives (either Democrat or Republican), yet virtually ALL of the NAME CALLING, and poor behavior come from the Liberals. The Liberals act EXACTLY like what they think the Conservatives act like.
You are exactly correct. That’s been exactly my thinking for the past 2-3 years. If they can’t defend against fair criticism, they just put a name and a label on it.
July 10th, 2009 at 9:57 amJackass,
I am not disputing or defending what Dan Rather did.
I am disputing your hypocrisy and betting you don’t get your panties in a wad when the lies of Billdo, KKKlownnity and Baboon Beck are involved.
I am sure you are holding an issue of the “Paris Business Review” to demonstrate Billdo didn’t lie.
NEXT!
July 10th, 2009 at 10:01 amjohnny dol1ar Says:
Jackass,
I am not disputing or defending what Dan Rather did.
More name-calling.
So what was your point? Please don’t divert the issue again, just answer that simple question.
July 10th, 2009 at 10:04 amDid Billdo lie?
Yes or not.
Simple questions, jackass.
If Billdo lied, does he have any credibility?
July 10th, 2009 at 10:08 amShould Billdo have resigned?
Is Billdo a racist?
johnny dol1ar Says:
I am disputing your hypocrisy and betting you don’t get your panties in a wad when the lies of Billdo, KKKlownnity and Baboon Beck are involved.
For the record, I don’t watch or listen to any of the ratings-magnet pundits (including Mahr, Matthews or King) because generally they’re all a waste of time. Or even worse, all of them (including Mahr, Matthews or King) skew objective thought. There is very little meaningful substance in anything that any of those people say. You should think about that.
NEXT!
How about if we finish this first? Or is that too difficult for you?
July 10th, 2009 at 10:20 amjohnny dol1ar, I think I answered your question (I don’t watch any of the pundits) before I read your last post.
Now are you going to answer my question about Rather or not? Or are you going to keep evading, as most flaming anti-reps do, EVERY time I try to take one of their specific criticisms to a full conclusion?
If you can’t stand behind and explain your statements, then stop calling ME names. Get out from behind your Internet anonymity and get real.
July 10th, 2009 at 10:28 amIt has gotten to the point with the GOP and right wing that the only way they can make headlines and news is to attack Obama with lies and more lies. There is never an alternative plan or a different idea, just lies lies lies, so that they can keep their mugs in the news.
July 10th, 2009 at 10:29 amWhat?
You brought up Dan Rather but can’t yet make up your mind about Billdo?
Let me make it easy for you:
a) Billdo is a liar.
July 10th, 2009 at 10:29 amb) Billdo is a racist.
c) Billdo is a pervert.
d) Billdo is a hipocryte.
e) Fox News viewers are morons.
f) All of the above.
johnny dol1arsays:
liar … racist … pervert … hipocryte …
Fox News viewers are morons …
Keep it up. Don’t explain yourself except with more and more childish insults. You’re just proving Gary wells’ point more and more.
Btw, once in a while it’s a little bit fun to incite people like you to name-calling. It’s so easy to do. But I’m still waiting for evidence of an actual original thought from you.
lvdragonlady, apparently you’re another one that needs to pay more attention from year to year and administration to administration. Or maybe you’re not old enough for that yet. Sorry, but unkind words can breed unkind responses. If you think Republicans own or invented brainless political attacks and name-calling, witness your apparent political ally above, Mr. johnny dol1ar.
July 10th, 2009 at 10:44 amWhere did the Jackass go?
10 minutes are more than enough for any retarded GOPiggie to answer a simple yes or no question.
It is not like I was asking him to tie his shoelaces or wipe his nose.
July 10th, 2009 at 10:48 amSo, Jackass
You do have an opinion about Dan Rather
yet
as well informed and educated (LOL) as you are
you don’t have an opinion about Billdo and Fox News viewers.
Is Billdo a liar?
Obviously, multiple choice questions confuse you.
Here again.
Is Billdo a liar?
July 10th, 2009 at 10:56 ama) YES
b) NO
c) I’m a GOPiggie moron and I refuse to answer because of my oath of hypocrisy.
johnny dol1ar Says:
Where did the Jackass go?
johnny dol1ar, I already told you, I don’t watch ANY of the idiots on TV. What else do you want me to say?? You want me to MAKE UP something??
My only point was that you and others criticize one network and/or people on that network, but you can’t respond to a counter-point which DISPROVES your rote prejudices. You just keep up the name-calling and insults.
So do you expect me to wait another 10 minutes for more of your one-syllable drivel?
July 10th, 2009 at 11:01 amYou people really need to stop watching so much TV, period.
July 10th, 2009 at 11:07 amnobody could be that stupid.(Joe)
July 10th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Jackass,
Odd.
You seem to have quite an opinion about Bill Maher, Larry King and Chris Matthews.
Yet
You can’t give us your expert opinion on Billdo, KKKlownnity or Baboon Beck.
Tell us please, which of the 3 leading morons in Fox News is not a professional highly paid liar?
July 10th, 2009 at 11:16 amJandros Says:
seattlemark wrote:
This is one of my favorite websites for laughing at the comments.
Liberals bend over backwards to try to prove that they are better than Conservatives (either Democrat or Republican), yet virtually ALL of the NAME CALLING, and poor behavior come from the Liberals. The Liberals act EXACTLY like what they think the Conservatives act like.
You are exactly correct. That’s been exactly my thinking for the past 2-3 years. If they can’t defend against fair criticism, they just put a name and a label on it.
It is nice that you use a sweeping generalization but that is a bogus statement. Both Liberals and Conservatives try to paint each other with egregious examples when in fact, neither side can be defined by the acts or poor behavior of the fringe. Once we discard the name calling by various people each group can defined by the core opinions of what Liberals and Conservatives believe.
Having said that, I can summarize the differences between Liberals and Conservatives which is the role of government. Conservatives believe that government should have minimal roles in the economic sector. However, the same cannot be said when it comes to social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, etc. Conservatives believe the government should be used as an instrument to enforce social norms. The different approach between economic and social matters demonstrate the conflict of conservative philosophy. I would note that the conservative view of the role of government in social areas is relatively new since Reagan who built his coalition with the religious right.
Liberal believe that government should have a minimal role in the social area and that the government should be neutral in this area. On the other hand, liberals believe in government should intervene in the economic sector. They believe government should be used as an instrument to create social change by use of government initiatives in the economic and social areas. The difference between the economic and social matters demonstrate the liberal conflict that individual freedom is the core of liberalism.
Both sides refuse to recognize their inherent conflict of their respective philosophy. They rationalize away these conflicts by claims that it is for the good of society. The average voter is neither liberal or conservative since their beliefs are taken from both sides. The biggest factor in most elections is the economy because voters always vote their pocketbook without regard to either philosophy.
July 10th, 2009 at 11:22 amjohnny dol!ar, just one more (probably vain) attempt to clarify and then I’m giving up any hope … sigh … I have no specific opinion about Mahr or O’Reilly or anyone else except that they’re all a waste of time. Their purpose is not much more than ratings competition, entertainment, sensationalism, attempts to get a bigger share of viewers who literally feed on that stuff, etc, etc, etc. Those shows are NOT news sources, they are only opinion sources. And opinions are like as$holes; everybody’s got one, and all of them smell pretty bad.
So I try not to deal in opinions, especially the ones that come out of prime-time news shows.
Even most news sites are biased one way or the other, same thing, competing for the best “headlines”, trying to improve circulation and ad rates.
Objectivism in journalism started disappearing 30 years ago. Now you have to read all the news that you can find and then try to glean whatever real truth there might be (if any) from somewhere in the middle. Maybe when you’re closer to my age and you’ve had maybe half of the real-world experiences that I’ve had, maybe you’ll understand that. I’m assuming neither of those is true yet, because of the substance (i.e. lack of it) in your posts.
Speaking of experiences, re Arn Gunnutes: These comment threads are never complete until at least one wacko off-the-wall conspiracy theory shows itself. Those theories are such good entertainment that we should never want to be without them.
July 10th, 2009 at 11:34 amAnd Nickelodeon is the highest rated cable network overall by the numbers. That must mean they are the pinnacle of television programming, right? All fox is doing is capitalizing on that trend by getting all the cartoon characters to host their shows (O’Liely, Insanity, Shrek, etc…)
July 10th, 2009 at 11:43 amJandros Says:
Were you sent here by Eric Odom or Marc Koldys? to TROLL a day old thread?
July 10th, 2009 at 11:44 amseattlemark, I appreciate your points, well said. But do you also know the difference between classic liberalism and modern liberalism? Many conservatives (like me) are more classicly liberal than “modern conservative”. Actually I don’t even know how to define modern conservatism, adn of course that’s the gist of many current problems.
About Reagan though, I would disagree that he created an alliance with the religious right. He might have coalesced something, but his 1984 landslide relection certainly represented far more than that. The truth (as I see it, as almost a senior citizen) is that the religious right goes back to the founding fathers and their principles (Federalist Papers et al), although people now tend to confuse their principles of religious freedom with anit-religion, which was not the case at all; only that the Constitution should prohibit the passing of any laws “respecting” religion, i.e, any specific religion, e.g., the dogma of the Church of England which they were seriously trying to avoid.
That was the context 230+ years ago, but now the context appears to be something else. And that is what confuses the heck out of every political conversation these days, and especially the opinionated pundits of all kinds, and even a lot of political leaders.
July 10th, 2009 at 11:46 amGary Well Says:
You do realize that based on current ratings, it is a FACT that almost 99% of Americans don’t watch Fox News?
July 10th, 2009 at 11:49 amI guess you liberalidiots can’t stand the truth, so that’s why my last post got scrubbed. Oh well. Just proves the idiots can’t stand what they like to hand out without squealing like a bunch of little girls in their lacy pink panties that they soil when confronted by a conservative. Just like Leahy ran to his reporter friends squealing “Dick told me to go eff myself. He made me crap my pants. Please tell everyone how mean he is! Please, please do it! Boo Hoo!” Typical liberalidiot pantywaist.
Anyhow. For you liberalidiots crying about Fox News and their supposed bias, let’s look at a little history. Some of you liberalidiots are old enough to remember Vietnam and the Tet offensive. You’d think as you got older you’d have gotten wiser, but nooo. I guess all the drugs really did fry your brains like that old TV commercial. (I wonder how long an idea has to meander through a liberalidiot’s empty skull before it runs into a functioning brain cell.) You younger liberalidiots I don’t despise quite as much because, besides your fried brains, you’ve never been taught anything worth knowing, the things that used to be taken for granted that an educated person would know. (How many of you liberalidiots know the boiling point of water at sea level? How many feet in a mile? What’s a sea mile(knot)? Let alone any geopolitical knowledge) You know, stuff any person who’s grown up in an English-speaking society should know. Idiots.
Back to Tet. Remember Dan Rather, the lying liar who lied about Bush, trying to change the outcome of the ‘04 election? (You are smart enough to know CBS didn’t fire him because of what he did, only because he got caught. No?) Forty years ago during Tet, he filed stories from an American airbase in Vietnam. An American plane had been hit on the ground and severely damaged. Rather, that lyingliar-hero of liberalidiots, was filmed from several different angles around that plane to give viewers the impression that it was several different planes. Why? So that liberalidiots at that time, as stupid as those today, would think the Tet offensive was being successful. Speaking of which, does anyone remember that other lying liberalidiot-hero who signed off every night with his self-important stentorian “And that’s the way it is?” No, Walter. That’s the way you thought it was. Tet was a complete disaster for our enemies, yet liberalidiot that you were and still are, you convinced your liberalidiot audience that the war couldn’t be won. By us. What a surprise to Ho. He thought he was the loser. Only liberalidiots can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. At the cost of over 58,000 American lives. Thanks liberalidiots.
July 10th, 2009 at 11:49 amAll these years later I can’t remember which network it was that ran the bogus expose about the GM pickup trucks with what GM called the saddle gas tanks. The “expose” was to prove how dangerous the tanks were in a collision. And sure enough, the truck burst into flames when hit. Not because of the gas tanks, but because it was rigged with an explosive charge. Journalism? And these are the avatars of unbiased journalism that you liberalidiots want to compare to Fox?
When the Founders wrote freedom of the press into the Constitution, they were not so naive as to think there would not be scoundrels who would use that freedom to mislead the American people. Never could they have imagined the evil manipulation that today’s media monsters have unleashed. Thank God for Fox News.
Several centuries ago a very wise Italian(is that redundant?) named Niccolo Machiavelli wrote “One who deceives will always find those who wish to be deceived.” Listen up, liberalidiots.
Reggie Says:
Jandros Says:
Were you sent here by Eric Odom or Marc Koldys? to TROLL a day old thread?
Do you have any meaningful comments, or just more name-calling insults? I just caught this headline this morning. Please excuse me for being late, at least according to your moral clock.
I wasn’t sent by anybody. Sometimes I just get pure sick of the brainless name-calling, and I’m off work today.
Now what else do you want to know about my life? If nothing, then please don’t address me any more.
July 10th, 2009 at 11:51 amWhy can’t George Bush prove that he didn’t go AWOL?
July 10th, 2009 at 11:54 amGary Trudeau offered a six figure reward to anyone who could provide credible evidence that Bush wasn’t AWOL and that reward was never claimed.
drexel Says:
Back to Tet. Remember Dan Rather, the lying liar who lied about Bush, trying to change the outcome of the ‘04 election? (You are smart enough to know CBS didn’t fire him because of what he did, only because he got caught. No?) Forty years ago during Tet, he filed stories from an American airbase in Vietnam. An American plane had been hit on the ground and severely damaged. Rather, that lyingliar-hero of liberalidiots, was filmed from several different angles around that plane to give viewers the impression that it was several different planes. Why? So that liberalidiots at that time, as stupid as those today, would think the Tet offensive was being successful.
If you think the so called “liberal media” is what caused the public to turn on the war in Vietnam, then you are the idiot. You take one piece of reporting and claim this is representative of most of the reporting and there is a cause and effect is preposterous. Your grasp of history is tenuous.
July 10th, 2009 at 11:59 ampags2, I’m a Vietnam-era retiree. For others around here let me point out that a Dem (RIP) got us into Vietnam and then a Dem (RIP) escalated it to quasi-full-scale war, which hopelessly engaged us into a could-not-win epic, largely because the USSR and China both were feeding the VC in a major effort to bleed us dry, economically and politically.
Second, the news media are even more influential now, by exponential degrees, than 40 years ago. Drexel’s point was valid, and I’m sure it was only to make the point that everyone can be fooled some of the time.
The best way to avoid that (again) is to stop watching so much TV. Also try to avoid revisionist history, especially the drivel that has no substance at all but is politically opinonated in nature.
And for whoever can’t see the political bias in ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN, then you need to get out more, pay more attention, and THINK more about everything that you hear and read.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:13 pmJandros Says:
We are not at one of your right wing blogs, therefore I am free to address anyone I desire.
It’s interesting that there is no record of you blogging at Think Progress until this thread and you came here loaded for bear, then start spamming the bottom of a day old thread.
I never called you any names, at least not until this point in time.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:19 pmYou Sir are a POMPOUS TWIT!
President Dwight David Eisenhower was the one that got us into Vietnamn.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:22 pmReggie Says:
President Dwight David Eisenhower was the one that got us into Vietnamn.
Ok, he was also a Democrat, but I think you need to re-read history. It was JFK who sent advisors to help the French in 1962 (+/-1) and then LBJ seriously kicked it off.
But I probably should’ve asked first; what was your point in mentioning Eisenhower?
July 10th, 2009 at 12:26 pmJandros Says:
Reggie Says:
President Dwight David Eisenhower was the one that got us into Vietnamn.
Ok, he was also a Democrat, but I think you need to re-read history.
let me get this straight:
a new poster who says Eisenhower was a Democrat suggests to a regular that he needs to “re-read history”?
Seriously?
July 10th, 2009 at 12:29 pmSorry for the lack of formatting:
let me get this straight:
a new poster who says Eisenhower was a Democrat suggests to a regular that he needs to “re-read history”?
Seriously?
July 10th, 2009 at 12:30 pmyes, jandros, we see the right wing bias of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox, all owned by corporations with full right wing board members
the right wing corporate controlled mainstream media lies all the time to protect right wing interests at the expense of their viewers
July 10th, 2009 at 12:31 pmJandros Says:
Now you have proven that you are a TROLL. Claiming all the networks except Fox are biased is not credible in the fact based universe.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:31 pmReggie Says:
Jandros Says:
please don’t address me any more.
We are not at one of your right wing blogs, therefore I am free to address anyone I desire.
I did say please, didn’t I? And I do realize this was apparently a left-wing article (if I must resort to labels) and most comments have been seriously left-wing. But you threw pointless criticism at me (and then you did it again), and I’m suggesting that that is all too typical of unthinking radicals.
Please not that I did not say left-wing radicals, just unthinking radicals.
This time I’ll just say that in your responses to me, if you don’t have anything to say that actually requires intelligent thought, I’ll just ignore you from here on.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:35 pmBtw Reggie, your “universe” is not the only one that has a right to exist. Can you at least agree with that?
July 10th, 2009 at 12:37 pmI’m afraid that wouldn’t help your argument. You assume that we DON’T “think more about everything (we) hear and read”.
The truth is, we just don’t think the same way YOU do;” about what we hear and read. And I doubt if there’s anything we can do to change that, nor would we want to.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:37 pmpags2 I know that, being a liberalidiot, you’re unable to read with any understanding. If we were face to face I would speak vvveeerrryyyy ssslllooowwwwllllyyyy and use whatever facial expression and body language I could that might help you to understand. Oh well. Poor liberalidiot. Have you been watered today?
July 10th, 2009 at 12:39 pmTo those able to read and understand the written word, I think I made it very clear that I was giving examples of the fact that for many years the major media have had no interest in the fair and balanced presentation of information, but instead have an agenda which they use the freedom of the press the Founders wrote into the Constitution to further.
Being intelligent enough myself to be a Fox News viewer, I’m listening right now as I write this to a report about the very liberal reporter, Carl Cannon, admitting that he and many other liberal “journalists” unfairly favored Obumble in the “08 election. How serendipitous that this revelation(to you liberalidiots; we’ve known it all along) should occur while I throw pearls before swine who would rather root around in their own offal.
Pags2 ,please I beg you,please, follow the advise that when you are silent you might be thought a fool, but when you speak(or write) you prove you are a fool.
Good thing you don’t resort to labels unless you must.
Ah, that makes it better.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:39 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
a new poster who says Eisenhower was a Democrat suggests to a regular that he needs to “re-read history”?
Yep, you’re correct that I was wrong, but it was the fact that Dems led us into the meat of Vietnam (it’s only Reps that do such things), and also the idea that off-accurate news reporting really does seriously affect too much of what people accept as gospel. That’s the point.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:41 pmLousy formatting, typos, etc…. it’s not only Reps that can lead people into one thing or another, either right or wrong. That’s the only point I’ve tried to make in any post here, which you might see if you’ll start from the beginning and ignore all of the name-calling junk in between.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:44 pmJandros Says:
pags2, I’m a Vietnam-era retiree. For others around here let me point out that a Dem (RIP) got us into Vietnam and then a Dem (RIP) escalated it to quasi-full-scale war, which hopelessly engaged us into a could-not-win epic, largely because the USSR and China both were feeding the VC in a major effort to bleed us dry, economically and politically.
Second, the news media are even more influential now, by exponential degrees, than 40 years ago. Drexel’s point was valid, and I’m sure it was only to make the point that everyone can be fooled some of the time.
The best way to avoid that (again) is to stop watching so much TV. Also try to avoid revisionist history, especially the drivel that has no substance at all but is politically opinonated in nature.
And for whoever can’t see the political bias in ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN, then you need to get out more, pay more attention, and THINK more about everything that you hear and read.
I happen to be just as old as you are. First, it is irrelevant as to which party got us into the war since multiple presidents from both parties were involved with Vietnam. When we knew China and Russia were feeding the VC, we should have reevaluated our involvement but the military was so deeply involved in shaping the government opinions. The military promised a victory despite all indicators to the contrary not the news media.
The news media today is no more or less influential than it was 40 years ago. However, there are many more news media outlets as well as the internet. People do not get their news just from TV. It is ridiculous to claim that the media coverage of Vietnam by the networks was intentionally designed to affect the public’s opinion. The images of battles and death every day on the evening news was sufficient alone to change people’s opinion. That combined with 58,000 Americans killed is what changed people’s opinions. If you want to see how the media was used to influence opinion just look at the embedded journalists in Iraq and Bush’s order to not allow photos of the dead returning from Iraq.
Your claims about revisionist history is absurd. The Pentagon Papers, which I doubt you read, is the starting point for most historians. A few decades have passed and there is a plethora of source material about Vietnam. You can’t rewrite facts.
Your statement about political bias of the networks fails to list Fox News which is the worst network for objective reporting. They use lies and material misrepresentations to shape public opinion. I have never seen Fox retract their statements that are incorrect, but I have seen that on other networks. The mainstream networks do not use political commentators to deliver the news. The mainstream networks do not provide editorial comment even as a separate segment during the evening news. Programs that are in the realm of political discussions are not during prime time like the cable networks. I would put ABC, NBC and CBS against Fox anytime to compare for factual errors in the news.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:48 pmBut that’s not what you originally said:
In fact, while Truman first sent advisors into Vietnam to aid our French allies in conjunction with our involvement in Korea, Eisenhower, who was a Republican, truly began our involvement in that nation, filling the vacuum left by the surrender of the French forces there in 1954.
And the Vietnam veterans Memorial marks the official date of US entry into the war as November 1, 1955, the date that Eisenhower deployed the Military Assistance Advisory Group to train the ARVN
So on top of your misidentification (a lå Faux news) of Eisenhower as a Democrat, your contention is wrong as well.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and re-read history.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:50 pmdrexel Says:
pags2 I know that, being a liberalidiot, you’re unable to read with any understanding. If we were face to face I would speak vvveeerrryyyy ssslllooowwwwllllyyyy and use whatever facial expression and body language I could that might help you to understand. Oh well. Poor liberalidiot. Have you been watered today? …………
Pags2 ,please I beg you,please, follow the advise that when you are silent you might be thought a fool, but when you speak(or write) you prove you are a fool.
I have a doctorate in political science and history. How about you?
July 10th, 2009 at 12:51 pmArn Gunnutes, YOU want to call MY credibility into question? What a joke.
Blagojavich, Burris, and the Louisiana Dem who was caught with $90k in his fridge … Mike Easley (D-NC), now under investigation for possible criminal misspending in his 8 years as Governor, plus his wife who was just released from a $180k job at NC State because of her highly questionable appointment in Easley’s last year … yadda yadda yadda.
Get the point: You people scream about Republican “crimes and misdemeanors” while you conveniently ignore your own. Politics is a b*tch. Get over it.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:55 pmIf that’s the point, it’s a fair one, but you made it exceedingly poorly.
Not only was your argument damaged by your distortion of the historical support you offered, but it was rendered absurd when you contended that virtually every news organization is politically biased, with the exception of the one whose leaders have openly acknowledged that it is politically biased.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:57 pmJandros, keep proving your ignorance, it amuses us intellectual types.
July 10th, 2009 at 12:58 pmRalph, there was “history” prior to Kennedy, but JFK ignored Eisenhower’s advice. He essentially separated Asia from American foreign policy. It was only later in his term that Vietnam was brought into his focus as “something to do something about”.
In terms of continuity, I think my original statement was correct enough. But my first statement got sidetracked and confused by one or two others, which I should always remember is a favorite tactic of people who choose not to at least try to think beyond political piping.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:03 pmWhat makes you think we ignored Jefferson and Blago?
Those guys got no support here.
But seriously, if that’s the best you can muster, and you still want to try to play the equivalence game, you’re in for a long afternoon.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:03 pmJandros Says:
Get the point: You people scream about Republican “crimes and misdemeanors” while you conveniently ignore your own. Politics is a b*tch. Get over it.
The difference between the Republicans and Democrats is that the Dems do not have family values and integrity as talking points. Republicans get lambasted because they pontificate and the public is vicious when a scandal involves someone who pontificates. That does not apply just to Republicans but also Dems and in particular, the religious right.
Two presidents have willfully undermined the US Constitution while in office, Nixon and GWB, both of whom are Republican. I thought that I had seen the worst after Nixon and that it could not happen again. But it did.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:07 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
What makes you think we ignored Jefferson and Blago?
Those guys got no support here.
But I said you people only SCREAM about REPUBLICANS and FOX. “Your” people and “your” news networks walk on water in comparison??!!? That’s what most of you seem to be saying about 99% of the time.
So maybe you could SUE me for making one tiny error in a rush. And then maybe I could sue some of you people for vicious, unsubstantiated, unadulterated, name-calling slander. How about that? Tit for tat, American democracy at work.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:11 pmwow Jandros, you can’t argue with what we actually represent, so you make up positions for us that you can argue against
dishonest to the core, and you wonder how we KNEW you were a right winger?
July 10th, 2009 at 1:15 pmJandros Says:
What slander?
July 10th, 2009 at 1:15 pmYou have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you are a pompous twit.
Yes, and that “history” includes Eisenhower deploying the Military Assistance Advisory Group to Vietnam.
There we disagree. You said a Democrat got us into Vietnam. That was not “correct enough”. It was flatly incorrect.
Although that does make me think — perhaps those of you on the Right consider statements to be “correct enough” if they support your position, despite their being completely incorrect?
It would explain a lot.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:16 pmMy, my, you are proving quite adept at straw man construction, aren’t you?
“We” don’t really have any news networks, and we certainly don’t think anyone in the MSM “walks on water”. That would be your own projection, based, apparently on a profound ignorance. Burt the statistic “99%” that you obviously pulled out of your butt goes a long way to selling it.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:19 pmOK, OK. I apologize to all. I have read all you have to say – and I agree, the conservatives are a bunch of blowhards who can’t make it in a reality based world …so we had to create a world of confusion. I guess the reason I’m such a moron is because I was gang raped by a bunch of preachers from my church.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:21 pm…Two can play at the hi-jack game Jack
July 10th, 2009 at 1:21 pmTommy, Reggie, is it just me, or does our new friend Jandros seem to be getting a bit hot under the collar?
The reasoned, clinical demeanor has utterly collapsed in a smoking heap of threatened lawsuits and ALL CAPS.
sad when that happens.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:21 pmJandros Says:
Slander is a harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech .
Perhaps Jandros meant LIBEL which applies to the written medium.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:23 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
Tommy, Reggie, is it just me, or does our new friend Jandros seem to be getting a bit hot under the collar?
The reasoned, clinical demeanor has utterly collapsed in a smoking heap of threatened lawsuits and ALL CAPS.
sad when that happens.
lol – well written Ralph.
I was about to alert Jandros that one of our progressive posters (I think – Another Joe) just left a post on the Blunt thread that was very critical of Obama and in fact could probably have qualified as ’screaming’ at him since he used upper case lettering and accused him of being a “SELL OUT” but it would seem that Jandros is spent.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:34 pmRalph:
No, it’s not just you, the poor little bugger appears to have completely lost it. You can’t blame him, I doubt expected to find any opposition on a day old thread. It was a fortunate coincidence that we all appeared at about the same time. *wink*
July 10th, 2009 at 1:35 pmReggie, please check Webster for the definition of “pompous”. Please. I’m asking nicely.
Pags2, you used that stereotypical “religious right”. Please forgive me, but that’s the kind of thing that really agitates me. I happen to know more “sincere Christians” (”evangelical Christians), who are registered and actively voting Democrats than Republicans. Most of those people voted for Obama, but most of those same people stand firmly against “too much” “social progress”. How do you explain that?
Too often people want to stereotype “everyone else” with some kind of label, which prevents them from seeing anything else about the real person. That’s what I can see most of people doing here, and those people are trying to wrap me up in some kind of neat little box, although they really don’t know anything substantial about my political affiliation. And let me throw a curve ball, I mentioned Christian friends but also one of my best friends from 18-20 years ago was homosexual, in the military, before Clinton’s “don’t ask don’t tell” deal in 1993. Now figure that one out. I wonder what kind of 4-letter responses that will generate. I’m straight, just for the record.
Just because my views and other views are not 100% supportive of the ranting and raving of the day, several people are throwing out all sorts of vile names. That disgusts me, regardless of politics or topic. If that makes me pompous, then maybe I fit the definition, and so be it.
PS for someone else, can’t find teh post right this minute: Education (e.g. PhD) does not immunize people from ignorance. It just makes some people a bit more pompous than others, cuz they have “credentials”.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:40 pmjandos, your delusional friends’ beliefs in superstitions has no bearing on your inability to debate without constructing straw men
you are dishonest and ignorant
July 10th, 2009 at 1:44 pmThen those people are obviously not part of the “religious right”.
Duh.
Another misconception. It appears to me that the names you have been called are the result of your misinformed statements and straw men in support of your positions, not so much the positions themselves.
We do occasionally get conservatives here who can and are willing to debate reasonably, with solid arguments and good humor, and I’m always hoping that each new right-wing voice who shows up here will be one of those. Sadly, they mostly turn out to be poorly-informed trolls.
If you think that the ONLY thing a PhD confers upon someone who earns one is that it makes them a bit more pompous, then it’s no surprise that you have so little respect for education.
No, education does not “immunize” people from ignorance. But a lack of education (whether formal or informal) absolutely condemns them to ignorance.
On balance, I’d say an educated person is far more likely to form good judgments than one who is uneducated.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:57 pmCatching up: I’m hot under the collar? Hmmm … try counting the 4-letter words in all posts, starting at the top. But even if it’s true, children can certainly do that to you.
Reggie, now I would say that you’re correct in calling me pompous.
marylacewing and all, I was referring to those of you, individually, who so readily jump on Reps without realizing (or admitting) that Dems have exactly the same problems. It’s the hypocrisy that tends to get on my nerves. But of course a hypocrite usually can’t see the hypocrisy of his/her own opinions, so this was another waste of words I’m sure.
Btw, I’m still kind of enjoying all of the attention. Not sure how much longer it’ll last though …
July 10th, 2009 at 1:57 pmJandros Says:
Pags2, you used that stereotypical “religious right”. Please forgive me, but that’s the kind of thing that really agitates me. I happen to know more “sincere Christians” (”evangelical Christians), who are registered and actively voting Democrats than Republicans. Most of those people voted for Obama, but most of those same people stand firmly against “too much” “social progress”. How do you explain that?
I specified the “religious right” which refers to evangelicals who have affiliated themselves with a political viewpoint. The fact that there are evangelicals that voted for Obama or are Democrats does not obviate the fact that the right wing evangelicals are the most vocal about politics. The religious right is far more sanctimonious than the religious left. This is the best description of what the religious right is:
“Fundamentalists have become increasingly influential in both religion and government, and have managed to change the nuances and subtleties of historic debate into black-and-white rigidities and the personal derogation of those who dare to disagree.
I define fundamentalism as a group of invariably male leaders who consider themselves superior to other believers. The fundamentalists believe they have a special relationship with God. Therefore their beliefs are inherently correct, being those of God, and anyone who disagrees with them are first of all wrong, and second inferior, and in extreme cases even subhuman. Also, fundamentalists don’t relish any challenge to their positions … It makes a great exhibition of rigidity and superiority and exclusion.
So there’s a loss of concern even for the death of those who disagree. And this takes fundamentalism to the extreme. This is an element of the fundamentalist cause in this country. If you are a wealthy white man, then you are naturally inclined to think that the poor are inferior and don’t deserve your first consideration. If you are a wealthy white man, then you also take on the proposition that women are inherently inferior. This builds up a sense of prejudice and alienation that permeates the Christian right during these days.
And, of course, fundamentalists don’t believe they can make mistakes, so when we permit the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, it’s just impossible for a fundamentalist to admit that a mistake was made.”
July 10th, 2009 at 2:06 pmJimmy Carter
Hi Jandros,
As Ralph put it so well, most of us welcome debate with well-intentioned conservatives but you must admit you came in here swinging! An excerpt of your first post at #92:
The only Repug I see around here is the repugnant ignorance of people who claim to know so much about everything, while you do nothing more than march and chant to the beat of the jingo-politico-commercials that feed your knee-jerk prejudices.
Like “Think Progress”. Progress toward what exactly???
We have quite a varied group of posters here.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:08 pmAnd most of us DETEST hypocrisy. And lies.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:09 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
Obviously Janus hasn’t read many threads here or he would know that the MSM is not held in high esteem by a majority of the progressive bloggers who post here.
He is now reduced to just blowing smoke out of his keister.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:12 pmRalph, let me try to explain in short sentences with simple words:
You are reading something in my posts that is not there. You use pre-formed labels to totally define me. You judge me and anyone else who sounds like me on a few words. That is a mistake. You do not have nearly enough information to do that. The mistake is not mine. The mistake is yours. But it’s a typical mistake, and as usual, off-topic diversions try to gloss over or deny the mistake. It also stifles communication, denies real conversation that could get past misunderstandings. On the other hand, I’m sure a lot of people don’t want to get past the misunderstandings, cuz then they would have to actually have an occasional serious thought, which probably is way too much to ask.
I’m sorry, were those last few sentences too complicated?
I really don’t want to say things like that. It’s just an effort to maintain the conversational flow :)
July 10th, 2009 at 2:14 pmOh, I think I see… you’re not hot under the collar because there are others who have used four-letter words going back to yesterday afternoon…
No — wait — i don’t see. Could you explain that one?
Lemme read this over again…
oh! I think I get it now! it’s our fault that you’re losing your cool.
Got it.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:19 pmWhy the condescension? Have I demonstrated some limitation in my ability to converse?
Could you identify these “pre-formed labels” and point out where I’ve used them to “totally define you”?
Or is this another one of those statements that you will later find is “correct enough”?
It’s not a mistake, it’s what humans do. We make judgments based on the evidence we have before us.
The more intelligent among us allow our initial judgments to be superseded when more information shows them to be inaccurate.
You haven’t really shown any evidence that you’re not who your comments suggest you are.
I have the information before me. It’s all I have to go on. I have made mistakes in initial judgments of people in my life, but I think I’ve gotten more perceptive as I’ve grown older and more experienced in the world.
But more importantly, you seem to think that I have placed you into some fixed category. In other words YOU seem to have made the exact same mistake of which you’re accusing me — you have judged me based on only a few words.
Funny, init?
I’m guessing it never is.
Before we go any further, please explain what you think I’ve judged you, and how what you’ve said here proves that judgment wrong?
Because I’m just not following you here. You seem to think that you’ve made points that the text doesn’t support. you keep mentioning this “mistake” I’ve made, but you seem content to simply allude to it without explicitly identifying.
Again with the condescension. Did someone complain earlier about pomposity? I thought I heard that.
But, no, those last few sentences were not too complicated — just too vague and generalized. You keep talking about some “mistake” but you neglect to define it.
uh huh.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:34 pmHere is a must read article on this exact topic.
Typical Hannity is at it again. Watch!!!
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2112
July 10th, 2009 at 2:37 pmIn case my last post was too long-winded, here’s the gist of it:
Now, does that sound like someone judging another based on a few words, or doesn’t it?
July 10th, 2009 at 2:38 pmOne more point, with a hat tip to mary lacewing:
Does this not sound like someone complaining about stereotyping by lumping most people here into the same category?
Let’s look again at our friend’s first post, as mary lacewing noted:
Yep. No stereotyping or unfair lumping together there.
You don’t have a ton of credibility on which to draw at this point, Jandros.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:44 pmmary lacewing Says:
Hi Jandros,
As Ralph put it so well, most of us welcome debate with well-intentioned conservatives but you must admit you came in here swinging! An excerpt of your first post at #92:
The only Repug I see around here is the repugnant ignorance of people who claim to know so much about everything, while you do nothing more than march and chant to the beat of the jingo-politico-commercials that feed your knee-jerk prejudices.
Like “Think Progress”. Progress toward what exactly???
We have quite a varied group of posters here.
Yep, you’re right on all counts. Only thing is, a lot of what I saw here was the usual vile mudslinging that is all too typical. I do believe some people like to actually have intelligent conversations, but I didn’t start the swinging, it was already there, swinging at shadows if nothing else. Just think about it, anybody who has any views that resemble anything “conversative”, we are automatically practically labelled and exorcised. That’s the background and it was very much in the forground here when I first say this headline this morning.
Actually I also recognize some of the people here from other places. some of them only have 1 concrete thought in their heads: Reps/cons are evil, others are God. That label “Repug”, among other things set me off.
It helps if people will “police their own”. I was once in a Muslim forum (on a great pubic forum site) where a Muslim warned one of her more “radical” friends about manners. Good manners always count for something. Believe it not, I have excellent manners on that site. What goes around comes around.
I hope that makes some kind of point with certain people here. Just for posterity. You either want to have meaningful expression and sharing of opinions, where everyone might learn a little something new, or you want to trade insults. It’s all up to you.
In the future I’ll try even harder to ignore the brainless comments and open insults. I just hope some of you will trash the stupid labels that only invite people like me to come in swinging.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:58 pmRALPH, if you’ll take the trouble to read about a thousand other threads like this one (try Craigslist forums … “Republican Love Facts”?) … maybe you’ll understand why I wrote what I wrote. It’s the same junk over and over again. If you must know, I was just repeating the template that so many “con-haters” love to throw out. For the record, I have also called down “cons” who were clearly wrong.
Oh and also for record, this article starts out with a slightly inflammatory headline: “Right wing concocts…” ….. as if the “left” wing never concocted anything? But yeah yeah, I’m sure you will say “no, not like the Reps”. And you see, that’s what blows me out. The seeming hypocrisy. That’s the whole thing in 3 words.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:11 pmTry taking some responsibility for your own discourse once.
You say, “I didn’t start the swinging, it was already there, swinging at shadows if nothing else.” but nobody was swinging at you.
You came on like the stereotypical Irish fellow at a bar fight: “Is this a private fight, or can anybody join in?” With an attitude like that you have to expect to draw some shots. It’s silly to complain later about getting punched.
You mean “stupid labels” like DEMS (as in Demagogues), or “your knee-jerk prejudices”?
Yeah, those can tend to disrupt reasonable conversation.
BTW, I noticed that in your introductory post, you suggested that you have been censored here before. I highly doubt that. The only censoring TP’s mods seem to do is related to its language filter which used to be absurd — you couldn’t type “analogy” or “analyze” for instance, or your comment would get stuck in moderation. That’s been relaxed, and as you can see, most everything goes except for a few objectionable words. Only the most odious trolls get banned and scrubbed.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:16 pmIt amazes me that people that consider themselves thoughtful,
intelligent, conservative thinkers can embrace Fox as their primary news source. If they research the ownership, timelines
and affiliations of this company it becomes obvious it is and always has been nothing but a propaganda machine engineered to manipulate and deceive its viewers.
It has been KKKarl Roves favorite tool for perverting truth, slanderering critics, and dividing America in half. He still makes appearances there regularly, mongering fear, making outrageous accusations and demanding not only credibility, but blind faith. Like a psychopath, he steals peoples power by demanding submission (in the name of patriotism). He then mutilates reality and they all fall in line, unable to think outside the little box of fear, intolerance and paranoia they’ve been sold as “right thinking”. Now incapable of independant thought, they keep their T.V.s and twitters tuned in at all times. Not so much for “breaking news”, but because the real world contradicts the false reality of Faux World and “truth” is much more convenient when it is condensed and delivered from one channel.
Neocon Orwellian Brainwashing Mission accomplished!
July 10th, 2009 at 3:24 pmLet me make a last point about this article and so many others like it: If journalism could ever return to something where the objective presentation of news was the main priority, on all counts, by all parties, then we would not be so severely polarized as we are. And again it’s the labels. Repugs, wingnut governors, neocons, blah blah blah. Zingers, cold pricklies, open handslaps to the face. Where does that ever get anyone? Internet anonymity sucks. It gives people license to hate openly, totally, without any taking responsibility for it at all.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:25 pmI understand why you wrote what you wrote. I just don’t understand why you complain about people slinging shit when you’re quite willing to do the same.
Either make your point about honest discourse or join in the mud fight. Don’t try to do both. Or worse, don’t join in and then claim you’re disappointed with the level of discourse.
BTW, I don’t visit craigslist forums, and Republican Love Facts is a parody of a familiar troll who calls himself “Republicans Love Facts”, a moniker that is in turn a play on a left-winger here whose manner is generally pretty abusive (most of us ignore him) named “republicans hate facts”.
So there’s probably some stuff going on that you’re taking at face value and shouldn’t. That being said, of course there’s abuse here from left as well as right. That’s the nature of a wide-open forum where everything goes and contentious subjects are discussed.
See, this demonstrates part of the problem you’re having here. You seem to reach for conclusions that aren’t supported by the text, and then you build arguments around those mistaken assumptions.
There is nothing in the headline that in any way implies that the “left wing never concocted anything”. That’s entirely your own supplied context.
Again, you imagine my response and then criticize me for hypocrisy that you imagined. Do you wonder why you draw fire here? Seriously?
July 10th, 2009 at 3:29 pmRalph, come on. Do you call people wingnuts to their face and expect to get a calm or serious response??? Your post was one of the several that led me to “come in swinging”. Get off your damn labels, and then maybe someone like me will actually consider that you’re saying something important. Until then I can only think that you can only think by rote. Can’t you see what I mean??? As long as you give insults, you will get insults. You should just expect it.
This “Think Progress” site probably thought about how much attention they could get with the 3 leading words. Again just another point about the media in general.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:37 pmJandros:
Keeping posting here, you’re reinforcing the stereotypical image most progressive bloggers have of extreme right-wing bloggers. Besides ad hominem arguments, misinformation and straw-men, you’ve done nothing towards contributing to civil discourse.
You have been posting on this thread for nearly five hours and have yet to address the original topic of this thread. which was Fox News once again being caught taking someones work out of context and twisting it to manufacture a phony controversy.
Fox did the same thing with the photo of President Obama at the G8 Summit and failed miserably. And if you even bothered to read what Pat Garofalo posted, then you would realize that this same misinformation tactic also failed when Fox manufactured controversy regarding the closing of GM and Chrysler Dealerships.
It’s pitiful and pathetic that once you have your a$$ kicked, you pull the lame right wing trick of playing victim, then you become really bizarre and threaten to sue. For goodness sakes, don’t you feel stupid for not knowing the difference between libel and slander? Please explain to me how you suffered any damage to your reputation when this is the first time you ever posted here and you did so anonymously.
Grow up Jandros, cut your losses and slink back where you came from. You are way out of your league here and we only tolerate you because you are a slow fat target, good for nothing else besides whack-a-troll.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:37 pmThe closest this nation ever came to the idealized journalistic landscape you describe was in the middle part of the last century, when television networks, at least, saw their news divisions as a fulfillment of their license requirement for public service. Two developments, in my view, derailed that dynamic:
one was Richard Nixon’s divisive style of politics that he found served him very well (and subsequent Republicans have embraced) combined with his deep-seated paranoia. This led to him declaring that the press was out to get him, despite what was objectively pretty positive coverage during most of his term. Of course, later the press did go out to get him, but let’s face it; he gave them good reason to. Perhaps it was a self-fulfilling prophecy. This phony “liberal bias” meme became entrenched in Republican mindsets and Ronald Reagan set the stage for Fox News when he did away with the Fairness Doctrine.
The second development was the launch and success of CNN. Ted Turner showed that news could be a profit center rather than a loss leader, and the major networks followed suit. When Fox News launched in 1996, competition drove the tenor of news gathering more toward the sensational, ratings-grabbing story and away from the ambition to inform the public of what they needed to know as an informed citizenry.
I know you’re convinced that all of the other networks are liberally-biased and you may even suspect that Fox News is the only “balanced” source. The evidence I’ve seen doesn’t support that contention.
Newspapers, on the other hand, have always had editorial biases from the earliest days of newspaper publication. Sometimes editorial bias influences ground-level reporting, but I think most of the time it doesn’t. When Dow Jones owned the WSJ, for instance, it was known for a hard-right bias on its editorial pages, but its journalism was exemplary.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:46 pmHere is something I missed and it comes from Jandros’ very first comment at Think Progress.
It appears that Jandros is a new nickname assumed by a banned blogger with a chip on his shoulder. Did Alexjandros come here with the intention of getting banned once again?
July 10th, 2009 at 3:50 pmJandros Says:
Let me make a last point about this article and so many others like it: If journalism could ever return to something where the objective presentation of news was the main priority, on all counts, by all parties, then we would not be so severely polarized as we are.
Your assumption is that the media is biased toward the liberal viewpoint is incorrect. The concept of the mainstream liberal press was first coined by Nixon along with his Silent Majority. The point of claiming a liberal press was to denigrate the mainstream media in its coverage so that Nixon could blame others for his political problems. I would note that the mainstream media did not treat LBJ with deference so the media as adversary started with Nixon to deflect attention from the Vietnam war, Cambodia and Laos. The idea of a liberal mainstream media has been repeated by every Republican president and some other Republican office holders. If the mainstream media was so liberal they would have never reported the sexual peccadilloes of various Dems alive and dead.
If anything, the mainstream media was relatively objective when dealing with Reagan until Iran Contragate. Fast forward to Clinton and the mainstream media reported every facet and detail of Monica Lewinsky. That coverage was not slanted to make Clinton better. If any bias was shown about Clinton it would be Fox News which was 24/7 attacks on Clinton. When GWB took office the press was deferential all the way up to Iraq. When Bush and the military embedded reporters, they were biased in favor of the war. That ended when the media realized they were duped along with the public on WMD. Bush brought all the bad press on himself by lying.
Today, we have Sarah Palin who started a media war during the election by claiming she was being attacked because she was conservative. Nothing could be further from the truth. These attacks on the media by Palin have continued and will continue until the public gets tired of her whining.
The complaints about the media have always been by Republicans trying to deflect attention from their political problems. It is easier for them to sell their faithful that the media is elitist and hate all conservatives. The complaints about bias go both ways for the media. But only the Republicans still reference “liberal media.”
July 10th, 2009 at 3:53 pmReggie Says:
Jandros:
Keeping posting here, you’re reinforcing the stereotypical image most progressive bloggers have of extreme right-wing bloggers. Besides ad hominem arguments, misinformation and straw-men, you’ve done nothing towards contributing to civil discourse.
Civil discourse? Like I started something? Let me try again: Start at the top – not halfway down where I first posted – and count all the “pugs”, “thugs”, “nuts” etc. Just get that point, please. Again I say pleeeeaase. There is nothing “civil” about that.
Until someone admits that one simple fact, I will stand on my view that reflex hypocrisy rules this obviously “anti-right-wing” news article and the majority of comments.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:53 pmAre you serious? My last post on this thread before you “came in swinging” was twelve hours earlier.
The offending “wingnut” remark was made even earlier than that, and it was referring to GOVERNORS. For you to take such umbrage at a throwaway remark like that… let’s just say it seems a little hypersensitive.
Y’know what, Jandros? I’m not even interested anymore in whether someone like you will actually consider whether I’m saying something important. If you can’t get past a disparaging remark directed at governors who tried to refuse stimulus funding, then you’re probably not capable of getting anything out of the rest of my comments except what you want to read in them.
I don’t defend what I post; I let the remarks stand for themselves. (Sure, sometimes I will try to correct a misperception.) Sometimes I’m thoughtful, sometimes I’m sarcastic, sometimes I’m even vulgar. it depends what I feel the situation calls for.
I really don’t care about tempering my comments so that some sensitive righty will not be offended twelve hours later and feel compelled to come out swinging. If he feels compelled to come out swinging, so be it. But if he later complains about the intemperate discourse, I’ll call him on his bullshit.
Yeah, I can see where everything I’ve typed this morning has left you with that inescapable conclusion.
Oh, I expect it. I just don’t expect someone who started off exchanging insults to then decide he really wants a reasonable conversation, and it’s our fault that he had to start with insults.
I don’t see how that is in any way a point “about the media in general”. it seems like it’s a point about TP, and one I agree with to a certain extent. I’ve often criticized TP in the threads for taking unjustified liberties with their headlines. But you wouldn’t know that, because you judged me based on only a few words. Actually, it seems like you judged me based on a single word.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:02 pmPags2, first, I was trying to be objective in my criticism of the media. I hope you understand that. I said that I don’t like to watch any MSM programming, especially prime-time shows. I think most of those shows do more damage than good; practically all of them, with very few exceptions.
Second, did you see the journalists’ own survey results 3-4 years ago? Overall, 72-80% liberal-leaning in 2 separate surveys. So in the minds of many “cons” … groan … the current “liberal” views of media are thought to be a projection of fairly recent opposite views, which again were apparently supported (in theory) by those 2 survey results. And that had nothing to do with Nixon, especially among younger people that I knew. But also as a case in point (my favorite worst example) was CNN’s falsely TV superficial (and misleading) reporting of the Port Security thing in Feb 2005 (or 3006?) was a prime example. I read all of that online article (which had the full story) and other reports. Also a friend’s daugher works in US Customs (port security). CNN’s “news” report was far off the mark from the real situation. But that is only to say that Fox cannot be critized alone for whatever representations it might make. And that criticism, in my mind, seems to come political prejudice more than anythint else.
But again I really don’t know, because as I’ve said several times adn I’ll say once more, I like to avoid the confusion that the mainstream media often creates. 9 times out of 10, I see more political leaning and posturing (on both sides of the fence) than any real news.
Hillary Clinton coined (or popularized) the phrase “right wing conspiracy”, but that did not mean it was true. It was probably from the same kind of paranoia that Nixon felt. That’s just my opinion. As for Nixon, I was an adult under his presidency and his paranoia filled the air, long before the trial.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:13 pmJandros Says:
Pags2, first, I was trying to be objective in my criticism of the media. I hope you understand that. I said that I don’t like to watch any MSM programming, especially prime-time shows. I think most of those shows do more damage than good; practically all of them, with very few exceptions.
……
You are extrapolating one false story as being the norm with the mainstream media for all reporting. I have already posted the fallacy of the liberal media by historical reference. If I am wrong in my analysis in my previous post then please cite the errors.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:19 pmNow the poor little feller is becoming incoherent, does anyone have a troll to English translation handbook handy?
Notice how he is once again pulling facts out of his a$$ and has no links to backup any of his assertions.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:26 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
Are you serious? My last post on this thread before you “came in swinging” was twelve hours earlier.
The offending “wingnut” remark was made even earlier …
1. Does that mean you would not use the term now? How about no more at all in the future? Please just think about it.
2. That was part of my whole point about “jingo”: You reiterated an “offending remark”. And sadly, I’ve seen it a thousand times in other posts. Don’t you have a mind of your own? But listen, I know you do. I’m just asking you and others to think about it, to just be “real people”, genuinely considerate and genuinely thoughtful, even on the “anonymous” Internet. That’s all.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:29 pmAnother Joe
Kentucky is not a Republican state. We are a split state. We are democratic on a state level by a landslide, and Republican on a federal level when the mood suits us.
Just thought I’d throw that out there for you.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:35 pmAnd the ownership of virtually every outlet for which those journalists work is conservative. If you’re going to play that game, then you have to consider who guides the editorial direction of the paper or the network, and how does that bias enter the bloodstream of the news?
If you make the assumption that a journalist who is politically liberal will necessarily shape his reporting to favor that viewpoint, then you have to be equally prepared to admit that the leadership of the organization will do likewise, and that the leadership ultimately has the greater power to shape coverage and thus public opinion.
A single poorly reported story does not evidence of bias make. One must demonstrate a pattern, with little else on the other side to balance.
Yet liberals lodge criticisms against CNN’s reporting all the time. The coverage leading up to the Iraq invasion is a prime example. A “liberally biased” news organization would presumably have approached that episode with more skepticism.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:36 pmWe do not use the term wing-nut to describe all individuals in the Republican Party, but rather it’s used to describe certain people who have earned that title honestly.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:38 pmTake for example your pathetic display here today, I believe you have earned that title tens times over. It’s been six hours and counting and you have added nothing here besides your own opinion. Not once have you bothered to take the time to post FACTS from credible sources to back up your assertions.
Reggie, here ya go.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/23/port.security/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai_Ports_World_controversy
In the original TV newscast, it was only a 30-second mention, and only to the effect that an “Arab-owned” company was going to take over security of all seaports in the USA. There was no further explanation in that newscast, which was why I googled it. It was alarmist, totally irresponsible, because it did not replace FBI, US Customs, or Coast Guard security anywhere in the US. SO Bush was made to look like a fool for signing off on it, after it had been reviewed and approved by all appropriate parties. I can’t “scan” that scene out of my head for you. Too bad. Wish I could. The UAE government actually felt compelled to make a public statement that they did not</b feel that Americans hated Arabs, just becuase of the stupid bad publicity that that story got in the press.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:39 pmJandros Says:
Now you’re being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
I was referring to the topic of this thread, something you are afraid to acknowledge. You’re using one isolated incident from years ago to distract us from the original subject.
If I went to Media Matters, I could find literally tens of hundreds of examples of Fox News doing shoddy and dishonest reporting.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:49 pmMedia matters is a credible source because they post everything in its original context, something Fox News seldom does when they try to spin the news to fit their agenda.
No, I do not mean that at all. I’m a student of language. I recognize the value of percussive or violent or disrespectful words when they’re called for. If someone shows signs of sincerely wanting a discussion, I’ll respect his sensibilities. But that usually requires the other poster show some respect when I first encounter him.
All I can do is leave that to you to judge for yourself. My comments should tell you whether I have a mind of my own or not.
Y’know, Jandro, this request would be so much more persuasive coming from someone who had introduced himself on the forum as someone seeking that kind of consideration and willing to offer it to others, than it is coming from you at this point. Perhaps you might think about that.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:54 pmQuite true, Reggie. You could also find dozens upon dozens of examples of CNN doing shoddy and dishonest reporting — biased against the left — at MediaMatters.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:57 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
I wasn’t exaggerating when I posted “we have a live one.”
July 10th, 2009 at 5:00 pmIt’s too bad dbadass isn’t here to enjoy this one.
Oh, he’s a live one, all right. You weren’t exaggerating.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:01 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
You will find Media Matters has examples of MSNBC and the three broadcast networks being guilty of the same offense.
That alone should be enough to prove to jandros that there is no such thing as the left-wing media.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:07 pmMaybe you understand “value” of language but you don’t seem to understand simple cause and effect. You wrote a flaming comment. Should I be responsible for neutralizing
that?
Your words: “But that usually requires the other poster show some respect when I first encounter him.”
Same here, don’t you think??? Take responsibility for yourself first. Think before you write, not knowing who will show up 5 minutes later or 12 hours later. What does that matter???
But of course it wasn’t just you or your one-word flame that set me off, as I tried to explain, and you should know it. Give the same kind of advice to some of your anti-nut “friends” here or in other places and we might actually get somewhere. If I still sound unkind it’s only because you’re still trying to project the beginning of all of the negative crap in this article on me. Open your eyes. Like you or someone said, I was 12 hours late. The party was already in full swing.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:10 pmShould be, Reggie, but I suspect it won’t get the job done.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:11 pmMonty Python – The Black Knight
July 10th, 2009 at 5:19 pmJandros Says:
I wonder what our new visitor thinks about Fox Nation, it’s outrageous headlines and the way both Liberal and Progressive bloggers are treated there?
It would also be nice if Jandros could offer an explanation for Fox News sending stalker producers out to ambush unsuspecting victims.
One infamous example was Ms. Amanda Terkel, who was stalked across state lines just because one of their hosts (Bill O’Reilly) was offended by a thread she posted on March 1st, 2009.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:33 pmYou should be responsible for your response, yes.
My “flaming comment” was a throwaway dispargement of governors who, in my view, acted irresponsibly out of pure political gamesmanship. I have no control over how you will respond to it; only you have that control. And as for “cause and effect”, the idea that my comment at 8:23 last night should so enrage you thirteen hours later that you abandoned your usual good nature and respectful tone to “come out swinging”, well… seems a little incredible.
But I get it — your response is my fault.
I accept responsibility for you coming out swinging. I guess I also have to accept responsibility for your sudden turnabout later, when you decided that what you really want is consideration and thoughtful discourse.
I’m sorry I caused you to interfere with that by posting a “flaming comment” last evening. Damn. I’ve been busy, even when I didn’t know it.
I’ve been here for years. The regulars know me and know what to expect from me. At this point I don’t really have to treat each comment as though it were my introduction to the community. I have that luxury.
When I see an unfamiliar name under an oppositional comment, I’ll offer that person respect and an opportunity to explain any views I find confusing or misguided until he proves that he doesn’t deserve the respect. All it takes is a series of comments much like yours.
Your repeated implications that I didn’t “think” before I posted what I did are getting a little annoying. Let me make this real clear for you: I DON’T CARE IF YOU’RE OFFENDED.
I already made clear to you that, no, I would not refrain from using the term “wingnut” in the future just to spare the delicate feelings of someone like yourself.
If you are looking for respectful dialogue and you read something that offends you, perhaps the best way to achieve your goal is to mention the offense in a respectful tone. But you didn’t do that. You burst through the door, both guns blazing, and then when you’re called on your shit, you blame it on a comment from me left the day before.
it’s more than a little absurd.
I don’t control my “anti-nut friends” here. I don’t comment on other places.
And we might actually get somewhere if YOU take some responsibility for setting the tone you wish to see. I can’t believe that you have no concept of the absurdity of your argument.
You don’t sound unkind; you sound deluded. I never once said or hinted that you started the negative crap on this thread.
I merely said that when you arrived, you immediately joined in the crap fight. There was none of the consideration you claim you want. None of the thoughtfulness. And what’s worse, you blamed us for the way you introduced yourself. As if you were forced to throw shit at the wall or something.
It’s just really weird that someone comes in the door, throws shit at the wall and then complains bitterly about all the brown stains on the drapes.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:35 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
Reggie Says:
You will find Media Matters has examples of MSNBC and the three broadcast networks being guilty of the same offense.
That alone should be enough to prove to jandros that there is no such thing as the left-wing media.
Should be, Reggie, but I suspect it won’t get the job done.
Guys, that’s exactly what I’ve been saying all along!!!!! NONE of the MSM can report real news!!!!! Is that statement only true if you say it????? My God, I’ve been talking to a solid stone wall all day long. I can’t believe it.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:36 pm00mpp00 Says:
This is just hoe all politicians, Republican or Democrat, keep the sheep voting for them…
That’s one of the smarter things I’ve read here yet. Actually I’m Libertarian (i.e. minimal government), although I guess most people here automatically assumed that I was Republican. Gnarly.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:42 pmJandros Says:
Looks like your own words are going to come back to bite you. You have been claiming for the last 7 1/2 hours that most of the media has a strong liberal bias.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Hmm… doesn’t sound to me like that’s “exactly what you’ve been saying all along”:
Sounds more to me like you were claiming that all the other outlets were biased left, not that you were simply saying they were all unreliable.
By the way — “they’re all unreliable”? That’s called “poisoning the well”.
It’s what you do when you want to discredit all reporting so that your own misdeeds can be easily dismissed when they are reported.
They’re certainly all to be treated with skepticism. But some of what they report has to be accurate.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:53 pmWell done, Reggie. You made the point better than I did.
Who would have suspected that out friend was a libertarian? You don’t see too many of them around here, do you, Reggie?
July 10th, 2009 at 5:54 pmOnce again, I’ve mostly been saying (if anyone actually bothered to read and understand correctly) that nobody should pay a whole lot of attention to any single mainstream news medium, other than for occasional entertainment, and furthermore, statistics are (as beauty) in the eye of the beholder, and anyone can play any numbers game they want with stimulus money and just about every other set of numbers. That’s all that Congress and the Fed have been doing anyway. We can feed any political bias that we want, all day long, with any given group of “statistics”. This article is generally worthless, just like most everything else that begins with a political statement.
July 10th, 2009 at 5:56 pmOf course, reggie,w e have to account for Jandros’ peculiar use of language.
When he said that Vietnam started under a Democrat, he meant that Kennedy escalated it.
So maybe when he made the point about all the political bias in the supposedly “Dem-leaning” media, he actually meant that they all suck.
It’s taking me a while, but I’m starting to catch on…
July 10th, 2009 at 5:57 pmI think I see. So you’re saying that rather than take in what the media reports, and assess its value for yourself, you prefer to dismiss it all and “think for yourself”.
Do I have that about right?
July 10th, 2009 at 5:59 pmandros Says:
Actually I’m Libertarian (i.e. minimal government), although I guess most people here automatically assumed that I was Republican. Gnarly.
Libertarian is just another name for social Darwinism. That is the antithesis of Christianity. It is not a good way of forming a society when the poor, old and sick are left to their own devices. Consider the possibility that you are injured and can never work again. What would happen to you? Now imagine that happening to someone who is 20 years old.
July 10th, 2009 at 6:01 pmOne last point: you seem to be laboring under the misconception that I was the one who complained about the tone in the conversation here.
I didn’t. I accept it. I’ll give as good as I get.
You’re the one who came throwing elbows and overturning tables and then complaining about what a mess everyone else made.
July 10th, 2009 at 6:01 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
I think I smell another of the members of the Ron Pail Cult.
July 10th, 2009 at 6:10 pm/
correction: Ron Paul
July 10th, 2009 at 6:16 pmReggie Says:
Jandros Says:
Looks like your own words are going to come back to bite you. You have been claiming for the last 7 1/2 hours that most of the media has a strong liberal bias.
Even most news sites are biased one way or the other.
And for whoever can’t see the political bias in ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN, then you need to get out more,
Now let’s compare Fox to the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc, historically Dem-leaning in its reporting (and occasional misreporting), not to mention CBS.
If you’ll notice, didn’t I simply say “political bias” as often as anything else? And I called Nixon paranoid. It’s just that when you people insist again and again that only one network is biased in any direction, it’s more helpful to concede that bias can also exist in other directions. Ok? CBS was a valid counterpoint, from a fairly well-known event, ok?? Was I wrong about misreporting?? But even beyond that, I also mentioned the news media’s own survey where they themselves indicated that they were more life-leaning than right-leaning in their personal politics. And you know, it almost has to weigh a tiny bit in one direction than the other. It’s unavoidable in the real world. Now do you want me to find those links too? Or how about this time you do the research? Or maybe just try to prove me wrong. Google is great. But if you need any help, just tell me.
July 10th, 2009 at 6:26 pmReggie Says:
ralph the wonder locust Says:
You don’t see too many of them around here, do you, Reggie?
I think I smell another of the members of the Ron Pail Cult.
See? You’re doing it again. You’re absolutely wrong.
July 10th, 2009 at 6:28 pmOh, I see you were trying to make your point by making another point in which you don’t believe, first.
Interesting strategy, there.
CBS is a valid counterpoint if you’re talking about bad reporting. That wasn’t the context in which you introduced it. You introduced it as an example of political bias. Again, a single example does not a pattern make. If it did, I could prove that the NY Times is a right-wing paper because of its refusal to publish reports of Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program until after the ‘04 election.
And you ignored my counter-arguments — both the argument about personal politics versus performing their jobs objectively, and the one about right-leaning management influencing editorial direction far more than on-the-ground reporting does.
I wonder if you recognize this same inevitability when it comes to management?
Ah, yes… the “you do my research for me, and then my argument will have convinced you” gambit. Seen it before.
I’ve seen other libertarians play this card. but they’re usually the Ron Paul folks. Not this one, apparently.
July 10th, 2009 at 6:45 pmJeez ……..
pags2 Says:
andros Says:
Actually I’m Libertarian …
Libertarian is just another name for social Darwinism. That is the antithesis of Christianity. It is not a good way of forming a society when the poor, old and sick are left to their own devices. Consider the possibility that you are injured and can never work again. What would happen to you? Now imagine that happening to someone who is 20 years old.
I did not say any such thing. Your excessive theorizing and stereotyping are just making stuff up that is not true at all. I am not a Darwinist or a heartlesss whatever-name-you’re-trying-to-call-me. I am practically the opposite in fact. I am Christian. I like Social Security and I like Medicare. I also have a “personal cause” for Native Americans. There are actually people in this world who can think beyond party affiliation. Again, please get off the labels.
July 10th, 2009 at 6:46 pmNews-media survey results since the 1980s. Take if for what it’s worth. There are more sites to be found (including rebuttals I’m sure), but again I wasn’t making anything up. I would prefer to see the numbers a lot closer, more balanced. That’s the only point, period.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics.asp
July 10th, 2009 at 7:01 pmFor the record: About Vietnam I meant (and I actually wrote) that JFK put it freshly on his plate during his presidency, and later LBJ “escalated” it far beyond advisors to the French.
Btw, I’m also a long-standing huge fan of JFK and I’m still not sure which “slants” to believe about LBJ. No opinion. Just to clarify. Sigh. What else in my posts didn’t you actually read?
July 10th, 2009 at 7:07 pmI would wait around for the follow-ups, but it’s getting really boring now.
July 10th, 2009 at 7:09 pmJandros Says:
For the record: About Vietnam I meant (and I actually wrote) that JFK put it freshly on his plate during his presidency, and later LBJ “escalated” it far beyond advisors to the French.
I have read all your comments, Jandros. You stated that it was a DEM who dragged the U.S. into Vietnam. If I’m not mistaken, you didn’t even mention JFK until later.
But the question still remains, what do you think of Fox news twisting facts to fit their agenda?
July 10th, 2009 at 7:15 pmThey do it all the time. I haven’t seen any other news organizations habitually do that. Have you?
It appears the new blogger took certain liberties to make a point by quoting you out of context.
See? You’re doing it again. You’re absolutely wrong.
You actually wrote this comment:
And I answered with this comment:
He then goes to say we are absolutely wrong but he himself admitted in an earlier post that he was in fact a libertarian.
July 10th, 2009 at 7:19 pmBesides that, both our comments never named jandros so how can he claim we are both absolutely wrong.
I have the feeling that this troll does not excel in reading comprehension, either that or he is just too lazy to make an honest effort.
Once again you take what happened here and quote it all out of context. Ralph and I both proved you wrong about who the first president was that started the American involvement in Vietnam
I replied with this:
Then later you wrote:
july 10th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I know this happened seven hours ago but how can you forget that claimed President Eisenhower was a Democrat.
July 10th, 2009 at 7:35 pm.
I read the whole thing. Including your first mention of the issue, in which you claimed that our involvement started under a Democrat.
This was wrong, but you never owned up to it. You kept clarifying and pretending that your clarification was what you had originally said.
All you had to do was say, “yes, our involvement began under Eisenhower, who was a Republican.” But you never said that.
July 10th, 2009 at 7:48 pmSmith1 Says:
Jandros Says:
For the record: About Vietnam I meant (and I actually wrote) that JFK put it freshly on his plate during his presidency, and later LBJ “escalated” it far beyond advisors to the French.
I have read all your comments, Jandros. You stated that it was a DEM who dragged the U.S. into Vietnam. If I’m not mistaken, you didn’t even mention JFK until later.
If you re-read, you might catch that I mentioned 2 Dems and I was thinking about JFK and LBJ. Someone else mentioned Eisenhower, but that was a distraction from my point. I thought people would assume JFK and LBJ because Eisenhower is a far more distant memory for most of us. I usually can’t even spell Eisenhower correctly.
In case this is meant to be a new round of nitpicking, like tag teams, once again I loved Kennedy and I’m neutral on LBJ. But that isn’t the point at all.
At any rate, maybe you can read better than most others. It took me about 10 tries just to get someone to understand that I don’t like any mainstream news media. People want to criticize just one of them loudly and often without realizing they’re all cut from the same mold, which is that competitive ratings are more important than anything else.
July 10th, 2009 at 7:48 pmTranslated into English from troll speak:
I had my ass handed to me by several TP bloggers over the last nine hours and I am going to claim victory and run away.
July 10th, 2009 at 7:49 pmYeah, Reggie, i noticed the out-of-context libertarian thing too, but I figured I’d let it go. Didn’t seem like the kind of thing on which we could get Jandros to see our point.
July 10th, 2009 at 7:51 pmJandros Says:
Get it through your thick skull, Republican President Dwight D Eisenhower was the first president to get America involved in Vietnam.
You are entitled to your opinion but you can’t change history.
July 10th, 2009 at 7:53 pmRalph:
I am not going to let him get away with anything. I don’t think he is going to go away until he runs out of Red Bull and Cheetos.
July 10th, 2009 at 7:58 pmNo it was NOT a distraction. It was a direct rebuttal of your point, since your point was that we got involved in Vietnam under a Democrat. that assertion was flat wrong.
It can only be seen as a “distraction” if you believe that Eisenhower was a Democrat too, and thus your point still stands.
It’s only being raised again because you steadfastly refuse to see or concede the point.
Maybe that’s because your introduction of the topic identified political bias among what you consider “Dem-leaning” media.
That’s an entirely different argument than “I don’t like any mainstream news media”. Perhaps had you begun with “I don’t like any mainstream news media” instead of
Now let’s compare Fox to the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc, historically Dem-leaning in its reporting (and occasional misreporting), not to mention CBS and Dan Rather — did you forget that he was fired for inventing news??
maybe the point you thought you were making wouldn’t have taken “10 tries” to get established.
People want to criticize just one of them loudly and often without realizing they’re all cut from the same mold, which is that competitive ratings are more important than anything else.
WRONG. We criticize them all for bad reporting and catering to their corporate advertisers.
We criticize Fox News for its conservative bias.
July 10th, 2009 at 7:59 pmJandros Says:
Jeez ……..
I did not say any such thing. Your excessive theorizing and stereotyping are just making stuff up that is not true at all. I am not a Darwinist or a heartlesss whatever-name-you’re-trying-to-call-me. I am practically the opposite in fact. I am Christian. I like Social Security and I like Medicare.
I don’t know what your understanding about Libertarianism is but I have read Ron Paul’s statements. There are many items in his Libertarian platform that would take the country back to the late 1800’s if his concept of freedom from government is enacted. His concepts would eliminate all government regulations in the marketplace. This means anything goes in the stock market which would end the SEC and I am not so sure the people who were taken by Madoff would agree. Also, the guards for defective products, drugs, tainted food, labor laws,etc. would be eliminated. This Libertarian theory rests upon the idea that the free market would be free of such detrimental things as I have mentioned. This is what the US was like at the turn of the 20th century. This thinking sacrifices any government responsibility to the people for the sake of a free market that is unfettered by law. This will never be a popular philosophy with the majority of Americans. Ron Paul is way out in left field and this is only part of his ideas.
July 10th, 2009 at 8:02 pmRalph, you haven’t admitted to one thing yet either. You tried to put the blame for “wingnuts” on somebody else, but anyway it wasn’t important “now” because you wrote it “last night”. What difference does that make? It was weak and pointless. But you want me to do “better”. Better than what? And then you stoop to calling me “one of those” or something to that effect, and then Reggie throws in “cult” for good measure. More stupid guesswork and stereotyping. You want me to “justify” myself to you while you aren’t even there yourself? Not a chance.
July 10th, 2009 at 8:05 pmJandros Says:
Ralph has a stellar reputation here and is one of the most respected bloggers at Think Progress.
July 10th, 2009 at 8:12 pmI am sure that if you could find an issue with something that Ralph posted here that you believe was not factually correct, and if you were to prove it using credible sources, he would definitely admit his mistake.
Jandros Says:
If you re-read, you might catch that I mentioned 2 Dems and I was thinking about JFK and LBJ. Someone else mentioned Eisenhower, but that was a distraction from my point. I thought people would assume JFK and LBJ because Eisenhower is a far more distant memory for most of us. I usually can’t even spell Eisenhower correctly.
Oh, I see. You got it wrong to begin with, by claiming that it was a Dem who dragged us into Vietnam, when in fact it was Eisenhower, a Repub who did. But it’s our fault for not reading your mind.
I get that you don’t trust the MSM, because you believe they are biased toward the left…oh wait, when called on that, you changed your tune there too. And yet, you still refuse to comment on the topic of this thread. You seem reluctant to say anything negative about Fox news specifically. Why is that? You didn’t hesitate to say negative things about the rest. Why so protective of Fox?
July 10th, 2009 at 8:21 pmThat is bullshit. I totally took ownership for writing “wingnuts”. I stated quite clearly that I would not re-think my use of it. Perhaps you missed that?
Please quote where I tried to “put the blame for ‘wingnuts ‘ on somebody else”? This should be interesting.
(Neither did I ever say it “wasn’t important”.)
The time element was relevant because you tried to say that I needed to “think more” about what I post, as if you were responding in real time to my comment. In fact, you not only responded twelve hours after I had left the thread, you had to read through another eighty posts before you posted your boffo entrance.
I suspect that the only reason you made a big deal out of it was because it was the only remotely abrasive comment of mine you could find, and you needed something to use to try to cut my credibility down to size.
You’re entitled to think it was “weak and pointless”. But it’s not okay for you to mischaracterize what I said and then criticize me for your own misperception, when the text is easily reviewed and says otherwise.
Case in point:
That was Reggie’s verbiage. You might want to research your insults if you want to avoid looking foolish.
So now I’m to blame even for the comments from Reggie that you correctly identify as his?
Good to know.
Unfortunately, you’re the one who’s guilty of that offense. I did not stereotype you. The “stupid guesswork” remark is a little odd for one who has tried to make a cause out of respect and consideration, though…
I don’t care if you “justify” yourself. Nor do I care about justifying myself to you. I’ve already accepted that neither of those acts is likely to occur. I’m content to point out the absurdities in your performance and watch you avoid acknowledging them.
July 10th, 2009 at 8:31 pmThanks for the kind words, Reggie.
July 10th, 2009 at 8:32 pmKeeping digging Jandros, you’re halfway to China. Do you see this symbol / at the end of the comment below. Most bloggers would realize that the comment was meant as snark. So once again, you are playing victim when you are proven to be wrong, something the far right does a lot lately.
July 10th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
ralph:
You’re welcome.
I’m curious, do you understand why I am blogging under the name Reggie. Here is a quote from Solomon Gursky that may explain; “Living twice, or maybe thrice, would be the best revenge”
I haven’t has this much fun playing whack-a-troll since the weekend after the CPAC convention, when Troll central attempted a multiple front attack on TP and failed miserably.
July 10th, 2009 at 8:43 pmOh, I remember that troll incursion, Reggie. That was fun.
July 10th, 2009 at 8:46 pmI received a few emails threatening bodily harm a few weeks ago from the latin king wannabe, including some that boasted about another takeover attempt. So I thought it was time to dust off the mallet and hang around to keep an eye out for trouble.
Did you notice that there were initially three trolls here today, two of them ran for cover when you arrived?
July 10th, 2009 at 9:00 pmReggie says:
I think I smell another of the members of the Ron Paul Cult.
/ <————did you miss this?
So there’s supposed to some kind of “code”? Go figure.
You didn’t quote the full reference that I first mentioned about presidents in Vietnam; the year 1962, +/-1. JFK. Once again, JFK seemingly ended Eisenhower’s policy which was minimal. Now think about how most people typically define the “Vietnam Era”; 1963 (LBJ’s first trip there as VP) or 1964 through 1975 which is the period that was formally designated by Congress for practical purposes. I googled it just to be sure that I was correct in that assumption, in what I thought most people would . Eisenhower was a red herring, off the point. But of course the dogs jumped on it.
Yeah, you and Reggie seemed to be bonding or something somewhere in all of that. You were quoting each other. That was soooooo sweet, but also a bit confusing because it all sounded about the same.
Your quoted quote again, bolding the pointy part:
ralph the wonder locust Says:
Well done, Reggie. You made the point better than I did.
Who would have suspected that out friend was a libertarian? You don’t see too many of them around here, do you, Reggie?
I’m one of “them”. Nice and neat, huh? I’m just curious how you define “them”, in your own words, without using any chiches.
July 10th, 2009 at 10:48 pmCorrections: cliches; and only the word “them” in the last quote should be bolded.
July 10th, 2009 at 10:52 pmAbout this “troll” thing; seems like I’m not good enough at it yet? Not nearly as “polished” as you guys? That’s about all I can figure, to be quite honest. But you don’t call yourselves trolls, obviously. I wonder what the difference is.
July 10th, 2009 at 10:59 pmJuly 10th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
It is not a red herring and we have explained it to over and over again. Try reading comments #136 – 137 – 148 – 149 – 162 – 217 – 225 – 240 – 241 – 247 – 251 & 252.
July 10th, 2009 at 11:50 pmJandros is being dishonest and is misrepresenting his original comment (#131) regarding the Vietnam War.
Now compare that to what he posted at # 258 and you can see that they are in no way similar. He also forgets that he claimed that President Eisenhower was a Democrat right after I pointed out to him in comment #134 that Eisenhower was the first president to get America involved in Vietnam.
I am surprised that a Vietnam era retiree would have forgotten about Eisenhower as he claims later in the thread. That sounds a lot like selective amnesia.
July 11th, 2009 at 12:05 amIt appears that “Jandros” thought he’d use the common tactic of taking a dump on an old thread, and have the satisfaction of the last word.
It didn’t work out all that well…
Nice work, my friends.
July 11th, 2009 at 2:16 amJust a test. Seems like my last post is viewable only when I login. Just wondering what will happen with this one …
July 11th, 2009 at 10:45 amNow as I tried to explain before, I stopped in here (#1) because the title of this article, “Right Wing Concocts…”, sounded like a political statement, and then (#2) in the next few minutes I read what seemed to be an all-too-typical series of name-calling posts, rather void of substance except to present an appearance of a pre-formed prejudicial opinion.
And then I was supposed to know some kind of “code” that “everybody” knows. I still don’t know why I should be criticized for not “knowing” that. But I suppose it just goes with the territory, whatever that is.
And also somewhere in all of that, I was called a Darwinist/Atheist (neither of which is true in the slightest) just because I mentioned “Libertarian”. I prefer minimal government, but not that minimal, mostly as opposed to just throwing a bunch of money out and hoping it will stick somewhere. Again both Liberals and Conservatives have been involved in that.
I said several times that I don’t subscribe to any of the prime-time pundits, and in fact I avoid them. But even after saying that, at least once if not more, supposedly “Kolbys sent me”. Eventually that seemed to come cross as calling me a liar. But of course I’m the only one who can make mistakes here. It doesn’t matter that someone else’s perceptions are just as wrong. If I’m an idiot or anything like that, then apparently I’m in good company.
Bottom line: When I see a politicized headline and then I see the “repug” and “wingnut” (etc) labels plastered thoughout, I get reminded of the mindset that a conservative (Republican or Libertarian) is very often automatically labelled as one thing or another, with all kinds of assumed trappings such as racist, hate-mongering, cold-hearted bigot. A liberal is the only one who “cares” or who can see or reveal any “truth” at all? That seems to be the message, and that’s what I initially reacted to.
Again the only last word that I want to have here is that just about anyone would really hate to be called (very bluntly) a liar, repeatedly, just because they can’t express an entire thought in one or even a few posts.
July 11th, 2009 at 11:13 amJandros,
I’m guessing you haven’t actually read the post by Pat Garafalo. If you had, you’d see that the claim that President Obama is steering money to areas of this country that backed him politically is a story made up by the right wing blogs Townhall and Newsbusters — hence the headline.
Assuming you are a new commenter on TP, #1) Welcome; #2) Like others who come here with a holier than thou attitude, you have found out that other adults don’t appreciate being taken to task by strangers; #3) If you’re going to stick around, you need to toughen up your skin.
July 11th, 2009 at 11:27 amJandros Says:
And also somewhere in all of that, I was called a Darwinist/Atheist (neither of which is true in the slightest) just because I mentioned “Libertarian”. I prefer minimal government, but not that minimal, mostly as opposed to just throwing a bunch of money out and hoping it will stick somewhere. Again both Liberals and Conservatives have been involved in that.
It makes no difference what you call yourself. If you do not subscribe to a smaller government but not as small as the Libertarians want, then you are a Republican. There is no name for people between Libertarian and Republican. Then if you subscribe to a minimal government, then you have already lost the debate. We have gone down the road of deregulation and this is why we are in the position today. Because of the abuses, the government must institute more regulations on Wall Street. Likewise, the dangerous products and tainted food cases are because of deregulation and we must pass more regulations. The whole presumption of minimal government is that the free market will give rise to greater wealth for the country, but it fails to stop the abuses. At this time, more deregulation will invite even more abuses like Madoff, Enron, etc. The voters have rejected the Libertarian/Republican idea of less government regulation. We cannot afford to continue Reaganomics along with less government. These policies have benefited the very rich at the expense of the middle class and poor. Reaganomics did not result in trickle down wealth but the opposite with trickle up to the wealthy while the middle class and poor lost economic ground. Reaganism is dead and the Republicans and tea baggers refuse to acknowledge the shift in public opinion. They are not going to buy in these policies again.
July 11th, 2009 at 11:36 amWell Zooey, thanks for the “welcome” at least.
Clarifications:
I’m not really new at reading TP because I usually try to catch most news & opinions no matter where they sit on the political spectrum.
Toughen up … I guess you don’t realize how often the insinuations of “hate-mongering racist” and so forth get used these days, including outside TP. Is that the kind of “tough” that you want to prescribe for me? The thing is, I usually do try very hard (in the relative absence of 4-letter words and their relatives) to bend over backwards to consider other people’s thoughts. But some people use the flag words like candy, for whatever reason I can’t fathom beyond the obvious. At any rate, in my favorite social forum I actually enjoy (with reasonable people) difficult and even delicate topics; e.g., Iraq with a young Iraqi (from Mosul no less) who generally thought that all American GIs were there to just brainwash Iraqi children and thereby imperialize her country, but who now calls me “dear friend”; also a younger man guy from Kazakhstan who eventually managed to insult Americans at large, in just about every conceivable way, to include projecting textbook Soviet-style propaganda tactics onto American lifestyle and half of our past and present administrations, but it was an entirely peaceful (though unpleasant) 2 or 3 week discussion. So I will respond by suggesting that “toughen up” is a relative term, and relative for all. Please don’t single me out on that. I would say the same to people who think that all Christians want to beat up gays: Don’t be so assuming or fearful or reactionary, just because a few crazies have done things like that.
Pags2, I certainly did read the article(s). It still doesn’t exclude the possibility that a headline can be easily viewed as having a political leaning. In this case there was a leaning one way (the source) and then a counter-leaning. Some posters here lean one way, others lean another way. But it’s just that I get the idea, more and more, that it’s not a tall acceptable (according to some people) to lean even slightly in an opposite direction. Furthermore, re this article and the original, I also suggested (reasonably) that people can “prove” all kinds of things with statistics, whatever they want to prove, and I think that should often be a reason for reasonable skepticism in toward statistics, all cases … and I already said that much before … unless or until the statistics can be completely and properly categorized, etc, but of course that does not happen very often at all on either side of the political spectrum. And I’m not nearly the first person in history to suggest that. It’s even a fairly common joke of a sort. True?
Again this was part of the reason for my response to this topic in the first place; that no news artcle is necessarily a neutral statement of indisputable facts. Unfortunately there are too many people in this country (more and more) who presume that their choice of news sources will do all of the analytical thinking for them.
I myself can’t assign any better (or worse) opinion for “Think Progess” than any other outlet that I’ve seen. But for the record, in general (and this is the ultimate reason for the last comment in my first post), my concern is that “progress” (or “change”) can be taken to improper extremes, especially in a country that increasingly demands instant gratification. And for several reasons, I’m getting more and more nervous regarding some of the current ideas about progress, and how far they will actually try to go; e.g., too much change too fast, where an unexpected disaster can be created because of constant pressure to just do something, and nobody will understand exactly what caused it or how to remedy it.
Finally, and again as I have said before, I usually try to avoid being labelled as Lib or Rep, because neither of them fit well, but I am more conservative than liberal. Maybe you think you can completely define me far beyond that, but you can’t. So please stop trying to tell me that “I am Republican”. You can’t read me nearly as easily as you think you can.
But again most of all, I wish people would avoid any of those “new” labels don’t do anything but imply closed-mindedness regarding the giver and the receiver.
That’s my whole point: Thoughtless generalization attracts more thoughtless generalization and shuts down communication. Although some of us are desperate to see more real creative thought which can lead to more creative solutions, reasonable solutions, so that some problems can finally be solved … without breaking the bank entirely … problems that several administrations have had opportunities to solve, but failed miserably at, time and time again.
Maybe this will explain something a little more clearly: Many Republicans frustrate me and irritate me to no end with their constant political idiocies. In many Democrats I increasingly see some kind of smug self-righteousness that tends to piss me off. I do like it when people can discuss things without introducing labels. Quite franky that’s getting harder and harder to find within America. My favorite forum is international (worldwide), and the majority of people there can manage to express dissenting opinions without pissing people off. Maybe I should move to Europe. Maybe Australia.
Btw, there are many in that international forum who hate Bush, but also an increasing number who question Obama’s sincerity or motives, contrary to their initial hopes. Some don’t sense enough substance in his speeches or whatever, or it remains to be seen. Again, this is just the idea that neither Dem nor Rep can completely to satisfy everyone entirely. Just for what it’s worth.
July 11th, 2009 at 1:54 pmMy first post today seems to still be “awaiting moderation” … only because it included links? … can’t readily see any other reason … but it was a response to defining the Vietnam Era. Google “vietnam era wiki” and look at the first link: Vietnam Era = 1964-1975, for formal or “legal” purposes. I figured that was the general assumption, and from there, that it was LBJ who escalated that endeavor to fullscale (but undefined) war, which divided the country; only making the supposition that one party does not historically have a monopoly on questionable or questioned endeavors, including stimulus economics, which both parties can share responsibility for, whether “right or wrong”, again repeating myself verbatim. This is just in case the other post doesn’t get moderated successfully. Also IRIS (Rutgers) seems to define the Vietnam Era as 1961-1975; again just for due consideration and a more accurate explanation of my original intent.
Now again, stop jumping all over me about that and stop calling me a liar, just because I didn’t sufficiently state every tiny morsel of my thoughts correctly the first time.
July 11th, 2009 at 2:08 pmStill trying to tie up some loose ends, hopefully for the last time:
2 or 3 people (or 1 person twice) countered that media owners are conservative, which presumably weighs against the leanings of journalists themselves. But are you sure they’re conservative? Or are they just “rich capitalists”, not necessarily heavy on one party affilitation or another? This is an honest question. Either way, I’ll go back to my feeling that media (especially owners) are more profit-motivated than party-motivated, meaning that whatever sensationalizes the best (without inviting costly lawsuits, etc) will typically get the nod.
At any rate, I supported my assumption with a link in post #235. Can you also support your assumption in a similar fashion? I really am curious about this. But if you can’t support your point, no worries, I’ll find it for myself.
July 11th, 2009 at 2:26 pmJandros:
Keep digging, you’re hilarious. Rather than link Vietnam Era, I chose to do a Wiki search for Vietnam War and this is the first paragraph of the Wiki entry.
But why chose Wiki when you can use google to search for more scholarly articles. This the what came up in the top of the
list, A Vietnam War Timeline
Once again you fail miserably.Rather than admit that you were wrong, you continue to flounder and show that you are an opinionated intellectual lightweight.
Why haven’t you answered any of the other bloggers questions instead of attacking everyone here that questioned you and your undocumented rantings?
Grow a pair and admit you were wrong.
1) Eisenhower initiated America’s involvement in Vietnam.
July 11th, 2009 at 3:38 pm2) Eisenhower was not a Democrat.
3) Therefore it wasn’t two Democrats that were responsible for America’s being in the war
Jandros Says:
July 11th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Point taken.
My only quibble would be that while you admonish us for “thoughtless generalizations,” your initial post contained thoughtless generalizations of us.
July 11th, 2009 at 4:03 pmIt is irrelevant which party got us into Vietnam since the motivations for our intervention was strictly containment. Contrast this with Iraq which was a war waged for the benefit of corporations who saw an opportunity to make money from oil.
Jandros Says:
Pags2, I certainly did read the article(s). It still doesn’t exclude the possibility that a headline can be easily viewed as having a political leaning. In this case there was a leaning one way (the source) and then a counter-leaning. Some posters here lean one way, others lean another way. But it’s just that I get the idea, more and more, that it’s not a tall acceptable (according to some people) to lean even slightly in an opposite direction. Furthermore, re this article and the original, I also suggested (reasonably) that people can “prove” all kinds of things with statistics, whatever they want to prove, and I think that should often be a reason for reasonable skepticism in toward statistics, all cases … and I already said that much before … unless or until the statistics can be completely and properly categorized, etc, but of course that does not happen very often at all on either side of the political spectrum. And I’m not nearly the first person in history to suggest that. It’s even a fairly common joke of a sort. True?
I have no clue what you are talking about since I did not reference any articles. However, the principles of true journalism require the media open with the following information:
Who
What
Why
How
When
Where
If you read any proper newspaper you should be able to read just the first paragraph and have the above information. A newscast should be the same with detailed information later. This is the first rule of journalism.
There is always a certain bias in the news because of what each media considers newsworthy. A newspaper article’s placement and size reflect the management’s conception of priority. Likewise, a TV news broadcast is prioritized by management depending on when the news story is read as well as the time given. All the news media tends to be the same stories in the same order. The difference is content and how it is presented. The mainstream media avoids editorializing the news, preferring to give the facts without any commentary. The exceptions to this are the cable networks which include political commentary. The dichotomy is because the mainstream networks must present a half hour news show and that does not allow for any time to make political commentary. Cable news has a lot of time to present the news which allows for commentary. I can get all of the most important news by watching ABC, CBS or NBC national news.
Most people are cognizant of the cable network bias because they will watch the network that is in accordance with their political viewpoint. The distinguishing factor in cable news is the facts. Fox intentionally omits or misrepresents material facts as opposed to the other cable networks who emphasize certain facts, but do not omit material facts. Fox has a political view that they are selling to their viewers and filters the news as well as mixing news with political commentary with any given story. Fox News is engaging a pattern of conduct reporting the news with an extreme bias. One of Fox commentators admitted that the RNC talking points were circulated among the news staff and that they were told how to report a news story or even directions not to report a story. The prime example of Fox was when Sanford’s affair came to light and Fox identified him as a Democrat or the tea parties. Finally, the Fox commentators shrill attacks on the other news media with complaints about the mainstream failing to cover a story are absurd. The only network who gave teabaggers any significant coverage was Fox. Even local stations did not give the tea parties extensive coverage. Fox commentators complained that the mainstream media was ignoring the event when in fact it was an event staged by Fox. The real complaint was the mainstream media did not gin up the coverage like Fox. As I previously stated, I watch the three main network news because they provide information rather than commentary. If you prefer to think the Nixonian idea of an elitist media, then you are only fooling yourself. The mainstream media did not tell Bush to lie about WMD’s so any bad press he received when there were no WMD’s is self inflicted. Bush and any other politician who lies is going to get bad press but government officials who claim elitists spin it as media bias against a political viewpoint.
July 11th, 2009 at 4:30 pmZooey Says:
Point taken.
My only quibble would be that while you admonish us for “thoughtless generalizations,” your initial post contained thoughtless generalizations of us.
Thank you, sincerely. And please allow me to address the last, in that I was indeed responding, in like tone, to previous generalizations about pugs and thugs and nuts and stuff like that, not to rehash, but only to point that out again. In other forums (not most blogs that I’ve seen) those flags also exist side by side with “cons” (conservatives) which implies me, as generally a conservative … although not nearly as tightly wrapped in any form as some kneejerkers want to assume … just so they can hate me unequivocally, without explaining anything at all? … if anyone who did not use such labels assumed that I was attacking them, then you have my deepest and humblest apologies. But I certainly will not apologize or even concede any point to anyone who still stands on insults as some way to prove themselves superior to me in some way.
But not to distract from my sincere appreciation that you, Zooey, gave my last posts some consideration. Thank you very much, you’re a kind and considerate person. My Native American acquaintances would probably call you a “true human being”.
July 11th, 2009 at 5:28 pmpags2 Says:
It is irrelevant which party got us into Vietnam since the motivations for our intervention was strictly containment. Contrast this with Iraq which was a war waged for the benefit of corporations who saw an opportunity to make money from oil.
It is not any more irrelevant than the unproven supposition that you made in that statement. I was in the Air Force during Desert Storm, which of course preceded the current situation, so of course I could make an opposing supposition. Just suppositions, not facts. My suppositions are also based on accounts by the Australian “progressive” Richard Butler who was UNSCOM chairman for its last couple of years (The Greatest Threat, published by Public Affairs New York, 2000) and also “Saddam’s Bombmaker” (Touchstone, 2000) by Khidir Hamza with Jeff Stein. Hamza was Saddam’s chief nuclear scientist who defected to the West in the late 1990s. Just to explain why I have an entirely different supposition than you about Iraq; again, whether right or wrong, the real “why” is beyond the knowing of any of us here.
pags2 Says:
If you read any proper newspaper you should be able to read just the first paragraph and have the above information. A newscast should be the same with detailed information later. This is the first rule of journalism.
Believe me, I would be very satisfied if that were true, but it is not nearly always true. At least once a week I read a headline and opening paragraph which turns out to be an attention-getter (a classic tool of “communication”) and it takes reading halfway down a long article to discover that the facts (or statements) do not support the headline or opening paragraph. Again you make a assumption that I don’t agree with. And was it you who insisted that I’m an Darwinist-Atheist-Republican or something like that? Please excuse me if I’m wrong, if it was indeed not you who did that, but I’m still having a hard time getting past that wild-and-hairy accusation. I presume there might be an infinite number of definitions of individual political profiles among Americans and most of humanity, all tempered by the individual’s environment and experiences.
I don’t recall saying that you had provided any references. I’m not sure what you’re referring or how you reached that conclusion.
I did ask someone (whoever it was) to support his/her (or their) claim that all news agencies are owned by conservatives (rather than just rich capitalists). I still haven’t seen any response on that. I’m just saying, why should I substantiate what I say if others won’t? But I do try.
Just one more response to another person and then I will have said all that I can think to possibly say.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:09 pmReggie Says:
Jandros:
Keep digging, you’re hilarious. Rather than link Vietnam Era, I chose to do a Wiki search for Vietnam War and this is the first paragraph of the Wiki entry.
The Vietnam War was a military conflict that occurred in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia from 1959 to 30 April 1975.
Reggie, the formal “definition” by Congress was the context of my original post, because for most vets and many others that’s usually the period that first comes to mind … again, for the large majority of Vets, because not very many Vets accrued time in country (either Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia) in 1955-1959. Or do you want to dispute that too? And during my teen years in the 60s, I never once heard Ike’s name brought into anything at all.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:39 pmReggie, just one more thing: Can’t you write any post without opening it with an outright insult? I might have changed my tone at some point except that you kept right on dig-dig-digging.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:46 pmThat is an outright lie, you claimed that the MSM is biased towards the left. Here are three examples of your making that generalization:
Jandros, your link at 235 is from a right wing site and their research is not unbiased. If you examine their home page it’s obvious that they are little more than just another right wing attack site slamming media stories while offering no substance.
Do you have any research from unbiased sources that do actual research, rather than spin?
July 11th, 2009 at 6:49 pmYou’ve posted 56 comments so far on this thread and only two have had any links that attempt to provide backup to your opinion.
The other two links you posted were both irrelevant to the argument you made.
Why not cut down on pontification and try using documentation?
Jandros Says:
pags2 Says:
If you read any proper newspaper you should be able to read just the first paragraph and have the above information. A newscast should be the same with detailed information later. This is the first rule of journalism.
Believe me, I would be very satisfied if that were true, but it is not nearly always true. At least once a week I read a headline and opening paragraph which turns out to be an attention-getter (a classic tool of “communication”) and it takes reading halfway down a long article to discover that the facts (or statements) do not support the headline or opening paragraph. Again you make a assumption that I don’t agree with.
I have no idea what newspaper you are reading. We have two in Chicago; the Chicago Tribune is/was an excellent conservative newspaper. The Chicago Sun Times was also a very good newspaper with a liberal editorial staff. Unfortunately, Rupert Murdoch took over the Sun Times and proceeded to wreck the newspaper from which it never recovered. The best staff went to the Tribune. Murdoch, who owns Fox, ended up having to sell the newspaper because of poor circulation. The Tribune has made some changes recently that makes it difficult for me to say it is still great newspaper. The format has been revamped too much. Regardless of which paper I read, the basic facts I previously cited of every story were in the first paragraph. Each paper has editorial pages where it confines the political commentaries. Even the New York Times follows the first rule of journalism. You may not like their editorial pages, but the news reporting is first rate.
You claim you are a Libertarian and then you retracted. I don’t think you have thought out your philosophy because you claim to be in favor of smaller government which we have already tried. Why would you think that making the current government even smaller is going to make things better? It did not work. You, the Libertarians and the Republicans can’t seem to grasp that fact which is why the people voted for Democrats. The Libertarians and Republicans think their message of smaller government is going to resonate with voters, but it does not and neither party has a new message.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:52 pmThat is another flagrant lie! We have explained it to over and over again. Try reading comments #136 – 137 – 148 – 149 – 162 – 217 – 225 – 240 – 241 – 247 – 251 & 252.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:59 pmpags2, newspapers are far from the only source that I use. Actually I get most of my news from Internet sources, which sometimes include newspapers, but also much more than that.
I’m sure that I did not retract anything. It seems like you just keep making over-simplified assumptions about me. If I state a general principle, you cannot expect to write an entire philosophy about any tactical choice or decision that I might make. Sorry, but that seems to be more the problem than anything that I have actually said. These days there are only degrees of this or that, because the black-and-white absolutes are simply impossible.
July 11th, 2009 at 7:05 pmI would further note that the people who claim bias in the MSM are confusing unfavorable news reporting as opposed to editorializing, eg, Bush and the WMD’s. The news reported the flimsy intelligence that was the justification for the invasion. Then Bush changed the story about Iraq that we were there to stop Al Queda, but the facts showed Al Queda wasn’t there until we invaded. All the while the story kept changing, the Republicans claim news bias when in fact it was unfavorable reporting of facts. All of the news organizations, except Fox, have their news reporting separate from their political commentary. You can tune in to MSNBC and watch news or political commentary but you know which you are getting. Fox has commingled news reporting with editorial commentary. The charges of elitism and bias in the MSM are bogus. The right does not like the editorial or political commentary of the MSM rather than the news reporting of facts.
July 11th, 2009 at 7:10 pmReggie, you also keep making false assumptions. If you will try-try-try to consider something instead of kneejerk- ranting so damn much, you might be able to see that I was saying all MSM are biased one way or another, first and foremost, and if Fox appears to be biased one way, generally the others appear to be biased another way. Yes, I did say that, and I meant it, but I also did not refute the idea that Fox is biased toward conservatives. But I usually do not watch any of them, because I can’t depend on how any of them report the news, so actually the direction of tilt is completely meaningless to me.
You’re going to blow a gasket if you don’t calm down.
You called me a liar yet again, so I’m done with you. Say whatever you want, it’s purely pointless to me.
Actually I’m done with this whole mess, as I intended before.
July 11th, 2009 at 7:15 pmThat is why informed individauls research reputable sources and base their opinion on an overwhelming preponderance of the evidence.
July 11th, 2009 at 7:20 pmYou on the other hand have shown that you go with a gut feeling and then validate it through the use TRUTHINESS (The quality of stating concepts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than the facts.)
Are you a Republican or Libertarian:
220
Jandros Says:
That’s one of the smarter things I’ve read here yet. Actually I’m Libertarian (i.e. minimal government), although I guess most people here automatically assumed that I was Republican. Gnarly.
My reply:
227
Libertarian is just another name for social Darwinism. That is the antithesis of Christianity. It is not a good way of forming a society when the poor, old and sick are left to their own devices. Consider the possibility that you are injured and can never work again. What would happen to you? Now imagine that happening to someone who is 20 years old.
223
Jandros Says:
Reggie Says:
ralph the wonder locust Says:
You don’t see too many of them around here, do you, Reggie?
I think I smell another of the members of the Ron Pail Cult.
See? You’re doing it again. You’re absolutely wrong.
234
Jandros Says:
I did not say any such thing. Your excessive theorizing and stereotyping are just making stuff up that is not true at all. I am not a Darwinist or a heartlesss whatever-name-you’re-trying-to-call-me. I am practically the opposite in fact. I am Christian. I like Social Security and I like Medicare. I also have a “personal cause” for Native Americans. There are actually people in this world who can think beyond party affiliation. Again, please get off the labels.
248
My reply:
I don’t know what your understanding about Libertarianism is but I have read Ron Paul’s statements. There are many items in his Libertarian platform that would take the country back to the late 1800’s if his concept of freedom from government is enacted. His concepts would eliminate all government regulations in the marketplace. This means anything goes in the stock market which would end the SEC and I am not so sure the people who were taken by Madoff would agree. Also, the guards for defective products, drugs, tainted food, labor laws,etc. would be eliminated. This Libertarian theory rests upon the idea that the free market would be free of such detrimental things as I have mentioned. This is what the US was like at the turn of the 20th century. This thinking sacrifices any government responsibility to the people for the sake of a free market that is unfettered by law. This will never be a popular philosophy with the majority of Americans. Ron Paul is way out in left field and this is only part of his ideas.
266
Jandros Says:
And also somewhere in all of that, I was called a Darwinist/Atheist (neither of which is true in the slightest) just because I mentioned “Libertarian”. I prefer minimal government, but not that minimal, mostly as opposed to just throwing a bunch of money out and hoping it will stick somewhere. Again both Liberals and Conservatives have been involved in that.
268
July 11th, 2009 at 7:26 pmMy reply:
It makes no difference what you call yourself. If you do not subscribe to a smaller government but not as small as the Libertarians want, then you are a Republican. There is no name for people between Libertarian and Republican. Then if you subscribe to a minimal government, then you have already lost the debate. We have gone down the road of deregulation and this is why we are in the position today.
Where have I seen that promise before?
July 11th, 2009 at 7:31 pmI think that this poster isn’t intellectually capable of perceiving that Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.
July 11th, 2009 at 7:39 pmReggie Says:
the formal “definition” by Congress was the context of my original post
That is another flagrant lie! We have explained it to over and over again. Try reading comments #136 – 137 – 148 – 149 – 162 – 217 – 225 – 240 – 241 – 247 – 251 & 252.
Ah crap. Look, we have advisors and even military task forces in several countries right now, e.g. Honduras, where a friend spent 2-3 years a short while back. Does that constitute any relevance at all toward starting a war?? No.
Liar liar liar. Liar liar liar. That seems to be about half the extent of your vocabulary.
July 11th, 2009 at 7:57 pmActually I guess I decided that you’re too much fun Reggie.
I believe “anti-thesis of Christianity” was a follower in that Darwin post. Exactly what was I supposed to have misunderstood about that?
(The misspelling is not mine, in case you might think to use that against me too.)
July 11th, 2009 at 9:18 pmPut the pipe down, you’re completely incoherent. Please do not stop trolling this thread, you’re the best comedy material this blog has seen since the latin king wannabe became toast on March 1st.
July 11th, 2009 at 9:51 pmpags2, the quote below is intended for Reggie, just so maybe he’ll figure out what I’ve been referring back to. But also I’m sorry for insinuating a couple of post ago that you misspelled “antithesis”, with a hyphen. It was someone in my international forum who did that. Again my apologies for transposing.
Reggie, from post #227:
pags2 Says:
…
Libertarian is just another name for social Darwinism. That is the antithesis of Christianity. …
And I responded to that particular “antithesis of Christianity” aspect as a supposed subset of my individual beliefs, which is not true.
But honestly I don’t even know where you’re coming from on that one. It honestly feels like you just wrapped something else up into a slurry of sarcastic insult and hurled it out. Maybe if I’d been a tad quicker, I could’ve given your pitch a good whack with my pipe.
July 11th, 2009 at 10:38 pmJandros Says:
see post #288
July 11th, 2009 at 10:48 pmYou’re comparing apples and oranges because unlike Vietnam those other countries are not currently engaged in a civil war.
July 11th, 2009 at 11:20 pmReggie Says:
see post #288
And? I still need to guess exactly what specific point you’re trying to make? Well, here goes:
1. I don’t care for Ron Paul and actually I tuned him out a long time ago. I didn’t care for McCain either. And even though I might “like” Obama, I still don’t trust his motives, but even if his motives are pure, how is it all going to translate in 4, 5 or 10 years? So what does all of that suggest? Just so you won’t have to guess, my personal opinion is that there has been nothing good to choose from for the past several years. And that is a problem for me.
2. If I prefer minimal government, as opposed to what happened over the past 8 years, why should I call myself a Republican?
3. If I don’t believe in creating even more welfare programs that won’t work any better than the current ones (because apparently the government still has not figured out fiscal accountability or responsibility, and I know something about that because I was in government for 35 years) or if I don’t believe in letting the government grab more and more power while we’re all dazed and confused by the economy, then why should I call myself a Democrat?
4. Or are you simply daring to suggest that someone else has successfully defined me and I should just toe the party line with no allowance at all for individual thought? (But I think all current politics is a smelly bag of worms, and yeah, that definitely creates problems for me.)
5. Or what? Did I miss something else in this little guessing game?
July 12th, 2009 at 12:29 amJandros Says:
Why don’t you go back and actually read the all comments on this thread and not cherry pick?
If you had bothered to read my comments in full and in their proper context, it would be obvious to anyone with an IQ over 75 what comment #288 was about. It had nothing to do with Ron Paul.
You’re intellectually lazy and you have contradicted yourself over 20 times on this thread. It’s as if you don’t remember what you have previously posted.
I have kept a list of all of them and will post them once you are done making an ass of yourself.
Thanks for proving me right about your being a troll.
July 12th, 2009 at 1:09 amPags2 made it clear she was referring not to evolution but rather Social Darwinism, which in fact is the antithesis of Christ’s teachings.
Yes you missed something, the definition of Social Darwinism.
If you had bothered to take time away from writing your rambling unintelligible gobbledygook and actually read the links at post #288 you would have learned that Darwin’s Theory and Social Darwinism are not related.
Now if Jandros was a gentleman, he would apologize to pags2
July 12th, 2009 at 4:36 amAlright, first let me get past this crap about Darwin. I don’t give a hoot about Darwin vs social Darwinism, because that was someone else’s curveballing stereotype. In short, again, it was the “antithesis of Christianity” that I queued on. Stop trying to be so infuriatingly academic and nitpicky about every little thing.
Now I’ll just sort out some details and maybe get past some of this extraneous crap that only serves to confuse a few simple points, and even twists me around in circles, which I should always remember is a popular theoretical tactic:
I am conservative, and I have pointed out that the “anti” labels pug/thug/nut etc also synonymize with con/neocon and all of that categorical crap. But I will use “con” and “lib” just to save a few typing strokes, although I usually prefer to be more clear and exacting so that a newbie won’t misunderstand … so they won’t have to dechiper any code. But I do admit that I referred to the “Darwin” post using “short form” because it is indeed easier to type “Darwin” than “antithesis of Christianity”. Just to clear that up. I hope.
I do resent the fact that people claim “con” bias in Fox but then try to deny there is any possibility of “lib” bias in other MSM, a proposition that can be supported by surveys that show something like a 3-1 lib/con ratio among journalists. But then someone else countered that owners are largely conservative, but unless I missed it in all the clutter, that other person has not supported his/her assumption in turn.
I am also Christian, so conservative plus Christian, thus typically stereotyped as “Christian right”, which is repeatedly and blindly stereotyped as racist, violently anti-gay, ignorant, on and on. That has created an extremely offensive and even socially dangerous stereotype, which has (via expedience and mental laziness) been encouraged and encouraged and encouraged beyond belief.
Just because I don’t fit neatly into someone’s mold, academic formula or whatever, I get lectured from 2 or 3 sides that I “need” to do this or I “need” to do that. First, that is a classic way to indicating talking down to someone … like smug self-righteousness … that only infuriates me more. And I refuse to cram myself into a shoe that doesn’t fit.
Finally, this point about this particular article: It quite naturally fans embers by beginning with “Right Wing Concocts”. A journalistic flame. Of course it satisfies (and attracts like bees to honey) a generally “left wing” person, while it only serves to alienate people like me.
July 12th, 2009 at 6:16 amReggie, you call me intellectually lazy, but I can say exactly the same thing about you.
Actually there is just too much extraneous crap to read here and actually it’s not my life’s mission to do that, especially when it’s continually interrupted by so many outright inflammatory insults that just naturally get more of my attention: I’m a “liar” because I didn’t see any real point in nose-diving deep into a minimal part of Vietnam history, for example. On and on. Beating a dead horse into a bloody pulp. Cherry-picking.
Ron Paul was mentioned in that string of quotes that you formulated. That’s the only reason I brought him up, only because you didn’t make yourself clear and I had to guess what your actual complaint was.
Crap. It’s not worth going on any further.
July 12th, 2009 at 6:40 am<blockquote>Ron Paul was mentioned in that string of quotes that you formulated.
THAT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE!
Now if Jandros was a gentleman, he would apologize to pags2
July 12th, 2009 at 7:32 amThe troll keeps dumping and dumping and dumping………
July 12th, 2009 at 8:51 amFYI, I’m not reading any previous posts, just to avoid getting sucked into another pointless or confusing argument.
This was as much my purpose for posting here in the first place: I see and feel a rapidly increasingly sense of polarization, a serious polarization, in a country that used to be able to get past its individual differences. And I partly (or maybe mostly) blame our “sacred” News Media for that. It’s like the stock markets back in winter and spring, up 300 points one day because of “good” news in the headlines, apparently because a headline represented a good sign or improvement or “not as bad as we thought”, so there was a sense of reassurance, and the markets responded accordingly. The markets thought there was some clear fact represented behind a particular headline or story. But then the very next day, a negative headline would appear, and down went the market by an equal amount or more. That itself is not the fault of the media, but I’ll try to get back to that. The point here is that it was all superficial, but even “superficial” was “good” or “bad”, and it had a real and direct affect on the economy, even though there might not have been any substance in either the positive or negative headline.
So now back to topics and blogs like this one (but really all politically tilted entities): Every attitude expressed in places like this (and other places) has a very real effect on a lot of people, especially in quantity and over time. Even if a comment has no substance at all, it can still have a very real and very direct effect, again in an aspect of quantity and time. And quite frankly, I see (or feel) more and more and more pure hate between and among people (all over the place) who have had nothing at all to do with the current state of the nation, except that we can incite or perpetuate some seriously bad feelings and extremely serious divisiveness, to the point that communication completely shuts down. I think that’s pretty evident here. And just for the record, maybe other people have “been here for years” and maybe for that reason they think they own this site or this particular thread, but sorry to inform, I think this public website doesn’t belong to anyone except the actual owners.
At any rate, I’m not trying to preach about anything, I’m just trying to explain why I think any politicized/polarized news headline in cyberspace, on TV or in printed news, disturbs me a lot, more and more almost every day. The last thing I want is for one side (either side) to pretend that they alone understand all the problems and only they have all the answers, which of course is not true and it will never be true.
But just because I couldn’t avoid seeing the last post, I want to say to Reggie, I can imagine that your cheap, petty, persistent, juvenile smugness will come back at you some day; again no substance at all, no effort at all, just pure hate in your last post. What goes around comes around.
July 12th, 2009 at 9:51 amYour position would carry a lot more weight, Jandros if you didn’t end each post with the exact thing you are railing against.
July 12th, 2009 at 3:15 pmIs there a problem here…
July 12th, 2009 at 3:25 pmHoodathunktick Says:
Your position would carry a lot more weight, Jandros if you didn’t end each post with the exact thing you are railing against.
Read and observe the way Reggie has opened probably half or more of his posts. I haven’t actually counted, but “half” is actually a conservative guess. My response was regarding something very direct, very specific and very personal. Think about how YOU might feel or react if you were me. Just consider the balance of it. If you can’t understand any of that, then please don’t expect me to be very receptive to your advice.
Reggie, Ron Paul must’ve been somewhere near that long chain of stuff that you quoted. In case Hoodathunktick won’t see fit to say it to you, if you had stopped opening so many of your posts with “LIE” “LIE” “LIE”, then maybe even you and I might have gotten somewhere. I’ve seen stranger things happen. But as it is right now, I find it very hard to even give a fat flip.
July 12th, 2009 at 10:23 pmI proved beyond a reasonable doubt that you lied repeatedly. Instead of playing victim and threatening to sue, why don’t you repudiate the assertion I made at comment # 300.
Any reasonable person who reads this thread from the start will realize that I have documented each and every assertion with quotes from you in full context. To quote Stephen Colbert,“reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
Your posts have all been long on opinion and extremely short on documented facts. From the very first post you made here your anger and disregard for facts has been obvious.
Show me one comment here were I failed to prove my point with documented facts or took any quotes out of their proper context?
YOU CAN”T!
I an still waiting to see you apologize to pags for making those false accusations.
July 12th, 2009 at 11:47 pmPags2, if you’re still around, I realize this isn’t much, just another aside as to why I don’t trust CNN (et al) so much any more, although I used to believe CNN was as trustworthy as any news agency that I could name. Below is a direct quote from one of the books that I mentioned earlier, written years ago, about circumstances years ago, but in the context that my concerns about MSM actually began years ago. The quote is from “The Greatest Threat” by Richard Butler (Public Affairs New York, 2000), page 113, paragraphs 3 and 4. It concerns 1997 and Butler’s UNSCOM team, meeting with Saddam’s “interference” team about weapons inspections and sanctions. Again, this is one small part of background concerning my opinions on MSM credibility:
“It turned out that Iraq had something new for us. At our December 14 and 15 meetings, five video cameras were aimed at our delegation to record our every word and gesture. I asked (Tarik) Aziz, ‘What is the purpose of this?’ He said that Iraq had decided merely to keep a video record of our (Baghdad) conference-room discussions and that we would be provided with a copy.
“Concerned about the potential for selective video editing making its way into the media, I asked for and received assurances that the tapes would not be released to the news media. Of course, within a few weeks, heavily edited footage from our discussions aired on Iraqi television and was later carried on international outlets, particularly CNN, which was well established as Iraq’s preferred Western media conduit.”
The preferred Western conduit for Saddam’s Iraq. This is not for the purpose of singling out CNN (or even to suggest motive), but was it that easy for Saddam to use them for his manipulations? I do think there’s a valid question or concern in there somewhere, especially alongside other examples that I truly wish I could reference, months or even years after the fact; again for background and accumulation, the building of general impressions over time.
July 12th, 2009 at 11:57 pmNear only applies to hand grenades and horseshoes. I made sure before I posted those quotes that neither pags nor I mentioned Ron Paul.
Thank You, that has proved my point!
You are too intellectually lazy to go back and read the comments those quotes were taken from, despite the fact that I took the time to number which comments those quotes were derived from.
Do you realize how much time it took me to do that nearly every comment I have posted on this thread? I even posted them in chronological order so other posters could easily read them in their full context and in the proper order.
You still are having a hissy fit over that comment I made to Ralph much earlier in the thread that was clearly marked as snark and never accused you of anything. You took that one way out of context and I showed that in my rebuttal 2 days ago.
You lost all credibility when you went ballistic and threatened to sue Ralph and I because you disagreed with what we wrote. Stop playing victim.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:10 am307 – Jandros Says:
What does that 12 year old incident have to do with your claim earlier in this thread that the MSM has a documented liberal bias?
In reality what your post illustrates is that the Iraqis reneged on their promise and does nothing to discredit CNN. In fact this shows CNN was beyond reproach.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:23 am
#307 – Jandros Says:
Your reading comprehension skills are lacking if you think that Butler was implying that it was the media editing those tapes twelve years ago.
Richard Butler is clearly stating that his concern was with the Iraqis editing the video and it never implies that CNN was in any way attempting to deceive the viewing public.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:53 am
There’s a difference between a mistake (which I did acknowledge) and a lie. It’s one thing to express an opinion, I would say even forcefully if it includes an attempt at justication, but it’s another thing entirely to call someone a liar in big letters, over and over again, especially without a strong and clear reason. I do believe a major charge like that requires major substantiation. There is also a big difference between (for example) advisors, covert or even limited overt military operations (e.g. Mogadishu), and “all-out war” that divides countries. And I would say there’s also even a difference between a tongue-in-cheek or snide comment and calling someone a liar, again repeatedly. Generally I’ve tried (whether I succeded in this or not) to respond reasonably to certain people who expressed reasonable concerns for something that I said. I’m sure I overreacted to a suggestion that I was an Atheist, but on the other hand, Darwinist theory, social Darwinism and Atheism do have a certain commonality, etc, etc, etc, just as Secular Humanism rejects anything spiritual. But overreaction is definitely not a good reason to label someone a liar.
I’m just saying, there most definitely is a definable point where it becomes very personal. That’s a whole ‘nother level of “disagreement”.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:21 amA mistake becomes a lie when it is repeated over and over again.
Nobody ever called you an atheist or a Darwinist.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:22 amThat is another lie.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:29 am