|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/12/2004 07:21:36 PM · #251 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by melismatica:
Originally posted by RonB:
So...on the coorelation between CO2 and Global Warming, I offer this reference from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change which contains this quote, concerning analysis of CO2 levels and air temperatures over the last 250,000 years:
"Clearly, the concomitant increase in atmospheric CO2 and air temperature over the last century or so proves nothing of a cause-and-effect nature. When all available CO2 and temperature records are analyzed, one can find much longer periods of absolutely no correlation and even opposing trends"
Just another set of facts to consider in our quest for the truth ( though more credible, in my belief, than the unsupported statements offered in the links some others have offered in this forum - for example, the last link that Gingerbaker posted only uses other commentaries as references to support what it puts forth as "facts", but this link actually supports its statements with references to actual SCIENTIFIC studies. To some, that may be significant. )
Ron |
Someone else my have already responded to this but I haven't read the entire thread yet so I'm going to anyway. Being aware that there are many environmental studies which are funded by corporations to slant science in their favor, I looked up the Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and lo and behold, discovered that they have financial ties to Exxon.
Here is the info from //www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change
Founded in 1998 and based in Tempe, AZ, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is âdedicated to discovering and disseminating scientific information pertaining to the effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on climate and the biosphere.â [1]
The Center has links to the fossil fuel industry, both through personnel and funding.
According to Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change received $10,000 from ExxonMobil. [2]
StopExxon.org reports Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has received $65,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. [3]
The Center works with the Greening Earth Society, a front group of the Western Fuels Association.
The Center is run by Keith E. Idso and Craig Idso, along with their father, Sherwood B. Idso. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another. |
Thanks for pointing out those items of interest.
So. The center is funded by Exxon. Nice detective work.
Now, for something REALLY significant, perhaps you could actually address their findings. Or do you automatically discount those based solely on the source of funding?
The tendency of some folks to completely discount information based on the source's funding is rather ludicrous. That's like saying that you wouldn't eat an apple that someone gave you if the money they used to pay for it came from their employer, a company that is in the business of producing pesticides.
Although I can certainly understand why liberals take this position. It allows them to discount everything that doesn't support their position using Kevin Bacon's six degrees of separation.
Ron |
The Center is not only funded by Exxon/Mobile but is quite directly connected with the Western Fuels Association. Surely, you aren't suggesting that this Center exists for altruistic purposes that have science and truth as its only function. A google search of Western Fuels Assoc. revealed this lawsuit against a handful of organizations promoting renewable energy sources, which had the gall to publish an add suggesting fossil fuels are hurting the environment. Could it possibly be that the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change might be just a teeny bit biased in their research and how they offer their findings to the public?
Could it be that Western Fuels Association, an co-op of utility companies that produces coal wants to negate the effects of burning coal on the environment? |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 07:39:36 PM · #252 |
My response to the idea of the media being a liberal run organization is to point out that my local paper was bought out in the past decade by the A.H. Belo Corporation. Rhode Island is a largely Democratic state with a very independent flair (dems are frequently known to vote for republicans--I've done so, and vice versa). Yet, our one major paper is now owned by a strictly Republican, Texas-based, media organization which as supported every Republican candidate since Ike. Here is a list of the other media outlets they own:
Publishing and Newspapers
* The Dallas Morning News
* Denton Record Chronicle
* Al Dia (Dallas)
* The Providence Journal
* Rhode Island Monthly
* The Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA)
* The Business Press (Riverside, CA)
* La Prensa (Riverside, CA)
Television
Broadcasting
* WFAA-TV - Dallas
* KHOU-TV - Houston
* KENS-TV - San Antonio
* KBEJ-TV - San Antonio
* KVUE-TV - Austin
* KTVK-TV - Phoenix
* KASW-TV - Phoenix
* KMSB-TV - Tucson
* KTTU-TV - Tucson
* KING-TV - Seattle
* KONG-TV - Seattle
* KREM-TV - Spokane
* KSKN-TV - Spokane
* KTVB-TV - Boise
* KGW-TV - Portland
* KMOV-TV - St. Louis
* WCNC-TV - Charlotte
* WVEC-TV - Hampton
* WWL-TV - New Orleans
* WHAS-TV - Louisvile
Cable
* Texas Cable News
* NorthWest Cable News
* Arizona News Channel
* ¡Más! Arizona
* Local News on Cable - Hampton
* NewsWatch on Channel 15 - New Orleans
My sources were
Who Owns What and Handbook of Texas Online. |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 07:43:21 PM · #253 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Not in reference to 2000. And nothing to do with which of the two candidates in the US would win.
I believe I understand the general foundation of the electoral college idea - that each state would send a representative to Washington, on horse back, to vote for the next president. Given the limitations in communications, computing, etc it makes historical sense.
Is there a reason to continue that process, rather than switching to the popular vote, which would appear to move the US further towards becoming a more direct representative democracy, rather than via a couple of layers of proxies ? |
The process does seem a bit antiquated and confusing. For Rhode Islanders, it is a real drag because we only get 3 electoral votes. :-D |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 08:38:16 PM · #254 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Not in reference to 2000. And nothing to do with which of the two candidates in the US would win.
I believe I understand the general foundation of the electoral college idea - that each state would send a representative to Washington, on horse back, to vote for the next president. Given the limitations in communications, computing, etc it makes historical sense.
Is there a reason to continue that process, rather than switching to the popular vote, which would appear to move the US further towards becoming a more direct representative democracy, rather than via a couple of layers of proxies ? |
There is actually no reason at all to continue the outdated and anachronistic electoral college. The problem is, switching over to direct popular election of the president, like switching over to direct election of US senators almost a century ago, will necessitate a constitutional amendment. This would be very difficult to put through, since the least populous and medium populous states, which under the electoral college have a higher percentage of voting power for president than they would have under a direct election, would of course be quite reluctant to approve such an amendment. |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 10:03:39 PM · #255 |
Originally posted by RonB:
You missed my point entirely. I wasn't demonizing Trial Lawyers - I was merely pointing out that with so many LAWYERS backing the Democrats it seems that the media would be able to use all that legal talent to edit their articles befor printing them. I agree that both Trial Lawyers and CEO's are both required, and also worthy of villification. |
Your point and intentions are very clear:
1. Once gain, you're following the Republican talking points and attempting to associate Trial Lawyers with the Democratic party. See, you know that over the past 40+ years, the Republican party and the American Enterprise Institute have been successful at driving the "Trail Lawyers Bad" idea into the public's mind; so, Republican party hacks keep on hammering that notion into our heads. You know very well that Trial Lawyers (or, Public Interest Defenders, as I prefer to think of them) represent a huge threat to one of the biggest constituencies of the Republican party: Big Multinational Corporate Money (yeah, I know it's a mouthful). Because, as you know, Public Interest Defenders, as a group, have amassed sufficient resources to go head-to-head against Big Money, and force them to comply with, among other things: safety regulations, labor protection laws, and pro-enviromental measures -- of course, I'll grant you that by so doing, Public Interest Defenders hope to make a buck. (Hey, it's the American way!) Now, as we've concurred, there are good-guys and bad-guys in both camps: the Big Money and the Public Interest Defenders camp. The point here is your continued effort to associate what you call "Trial Lawyers" with one party, and not the other -- a common practice among those that follow the Republican talking points. (See here for an example of the Republican talking points.)
2. Again you rely on one of the Republican talking points: the specter of the so-called liberal media. Interestingly, later in your response, you acknowledge that the so-called liberal media is driven by "commercial" and "sensationalistic" interests, and not by a so-called liberal bias (but I'll get to that later). You insinuate that the so-called liberal media is aligned with the Democratic party and, therefore, the news items should be edited by the Democratic party lawyers. First, it is ridiculous to suggest that the media is in the pocket of Democrats and that the two somehow coordinate with each other. But I'll leave that aside, it's so ridiculous and you know it. Again, the specter of the so-called liberal media has been so repeatedly beaten into the public's mind, that many don't even question it anymore. Of course, Republican partisans know that they won the battle over the so-called liberal media label long-ago. Here's an instructive piece I came across: //conservativehq.com/. Of course, the author is not widely known to the public at-large. However, it is precisely that anonymity that allows him to speak so candidly, as he knows who his audience is and who is likely to read his book. He writes:
Our cause has come a long way in the past 40 years. We've learned how to use the alternative media-political direct mail and talk radio and cable TV-to build our movement and convert more and more Americans to our cause. "Liberal" is now such an unpopular label with the American people that every liberal I know has run for cover and calls himself a "progressive."
He later comments, "smart people on the Left are learning from the past successes of conservatives." Well, he's right about that... the model that the Republican/Conservative movement laid out is extremely educational.
Refuting the myth of the so-called liberal media is like pulling teeth: painful, arduous and always approached with weariness -- given how entrenched the notion is. However, for those interested on the subject, please see the following:
* Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
* Media Matters for America
* The Republican Noise Machine
* Control Room (documentary on how the Iraq war was covered by U.S. vs. Middle Eastern media)
* Out Foxed (documentary on the inner workings of the Fox News operation)
* What Liberal Media?
* Manufacturing Consent (summery)
Originally posted by RonB:
The purpose of mainstream newspapers is NOT to provide news and it is NOT to inform the public - the purpose of mainstream newspapers is to make money for its owners by selling as many newspapers as it can. The best way to sell newspapers is to appeal to the potential buyer by enticing them with headlines that appeal to their base desires and then not disappointing them with the content of the stories. SO...given a choice of headlines like
1) Publication of Informant's Name Compromises Intelligence Efforts
or
2) Leak allowed al Qaeda suspects to escape
which one do you think would entice someone to buy a paper? The second one, of course ( USA Today ). |
I couldn't agree with you more. As I noted earlier, and as you concur above, the media is driven by "commercial" and "sensationalistic" interests, and not by a so-called liberal bias. All of us -- all U.S. citizens -- have much to complain about regarding the media, and the terrible job they're doing of covering substantive issues. What's pertinent to the point at-hand, is how closely you've followed the Republican talking points by raising the specter of the so-called liberal media -- even though you acknowledged and recognize that "commercial" and "sensationalistic" interests are what drive the media, and not some liberal bias.
Originally posted by RonB:
As I have pointed out in prior posts, this was not a "leak". A "leak" is when information is made known secretly, outside of official channels. This information ( the informant's name ) was made known in an official background briefing to which the media had been invited.
If you like to read books ( as it appears you do ), then I would suggest these three: "Coloring the News" by William McGowan, "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, and "It Ain't Necessarily So" by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S. Robert Lichter. They should all be available at Amazon.com. |
Ron, you do a fantastic job of splitting hairs, and of deploying the same sort of linguistic jujitsu used by two masters of verbal dexterity: Mr. Clinton and Mr. Rumsfeld. Mr. Clinton asked, "it depends on your definition of what IS is." And, of course, Mr. Rumsfeld's use of gab has been described thus:
"It uses playful language to address the most somber subjects: war, terrorism, mortality. Much of it is about indirection and evasion: He never faces his subjects head on but weaves away, letting inversions and repetitions confuse and beguile."
See the rest here.
Look, use whatever qualifier you want: leak, disclosure, background briefing, etc. That's not the point. The point is that valuable human-intelligence resources should not have been publicly disclosed by the Bush administration, whether it be a mole within al Queda or an undercover C.I.A. agent. Both of these actions directly undermined our national security and put the lives of U.S. operatives on the field at risk.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by bdobe:
I'll keep this short. If the Bush administration did not have a serious credibility problem there wouldn't be any need for them to defend/qualify/substantiate the terror alerts. |
Ah, but there would be. Its difficult to entice people to buy newspapers ( or watch TV News programs, or browse Internet News sites ) without "news" to proffer. And again, its necessary to appeal to the base desires of people to entice them. If you don't HAVE news, you have to CREATE news. One way to do that is to push conspiracy theories - raise lots of questions through innuendo, nuanced accusations, etc. And by doing so CREATE in the public a "demand to know" the "truth". Then, leverage that public sentiment to pressure those in power to respond to the "questions". You get the drift. |
You did not address the issue, which is that the Bush administration -- over the past two years -- has squandered whatever credibility they had left. Jeesh, talk about "conspiracy theories"; you'd have us believe that the media have gotten together to conspire against Mr. Bush, and so must "CREATE" news. Well, I think it's a lot simpler than that, I think: Mr. Bush & Co. have a serious credibility problem and, therefore, many in the public cannot take them at their word anymore.
Originally posted by RonB:
1) Spies being unmasked for political gain: I assume that you are referring to the release of the name of an informant in the background briefing. While I think that it is a VERY remote possibility that the release of his name may have been "politically" motivated, I don't see what "political" purpose it would have served. The "political" purpose would have been served WITHOUT naming him. I believe that his name was provided only to "prove" that there WAS credible information to raise the terror alert level in NY, NJ, and DC - a proof that was becoming the cause célèbre of the media. |
Yes, I'm referring to the al Queda mole whose name was released, and to the under cover C.I.A. agent whose identity was revealed. One of these cases is under criminal investigation, and we'll just have to see how high up the Bush White House the investigation goes -- of course, Mr. Bush has already consulted a lawyer on the matter.
As for the "political gains" to be made by the leak/release/disclosure of these names: 1. Rather than expending political capital explaining to the public how four year old information had now yielded the possibility of a new threat, the Bush administration took the easy way out by releasing Mr. Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan's name as their main supporting proof. (I'll grant you that they are related; however, the evidence should've been supported without disclosing the identify of such a valuable resource.) Intelligence analysts agree that it's extremely hard to penetrate al Queda for various reasons, including: language, culture, insularity, etc.; even so, Bush & Co. decided that a valuable resource inside of al Queda wasn't really all that important after all. Aside from the ramifications that the release of the mole's name has for us at home, our allies have to deal with the consequences, too. Thereby, further damaging our already fragile relationship with the international community. 2. As for the release of the under cover C.I.A. agent's identify, let's remember that her name was leaked when it appeared that her husband, Ambassador Wilson, was going to publicly refute Mr. Bush's claim that Iraq was attempting to acquire nuclear materials from Niger. (Now, you and I will interpret the players' motives very differently; however, luckily for us, the facts can be debated elsewhere -- as there already is a criminal investigation underway in the case of the C.I.A. agent's identity leak.)
Originally posted by RonB:
2) an elective war was pursued for the wrong reasons: The "wrong reasons" are perhaps evident in hindsight, but I would ask you what you would have done in Bush's place if you did NOT know then what you know now. Have you ever made a well-thought out decision that resulted in your doing something that had completely undesirable, if not terrible consequences? I'll bet you have. |
Wow, now I know you know better. You know that the evidence was shotty, inconclusive and circumstantial. Yet, the Bush administration presented their case to the American people and the world as rock solid. Again, let's remember that not everyone thought that there was solid proof that Iraq possessed W.M.D.(s) that presented a clear danger to the world, much less to the US. Dr. Hans Blix, the chief U.N. inspector before Bush & Co. muscled him out of the position before the invasion, had this to say:
"Well, they [the Bush administration] certainly advanced weapons of mass destruction as the decisive reason for going to war, and I think the evidence was rather weak at the time."
You can read the full interview here. Of course, Dr. Hans Blix is a diplomat and, therefore, walks a fine line on the subject -- never explicitly saying, Yeah, Bush & Co. lied and made a fool of us all. But, hey, we're not diplomats and we can read between the lines just fine. You know, Ron, for a man that so often employs the, "oh shucks, I want just the facts," you sure are willing to cut Bush & Co. a lot of slack when it comes to circumstantial evidence that lead to the loss of 934 of our sons, daughters, fathers, brothers, uncles, mothers... not to mention an estimated 10,000 Iraqi civilian casualties.
Damn, I could go on and on about this subject, but I'll spare you all... not to mention that posting to this board is seriously affecting my productivity at work. I'll just add one more thing: to say that it's only in hindsight that we can judge the Iraq invasion to be a mistake and that there was no way to know, is to lie to yourself, and to others on this board. Now, as for what should've been done: 1. Bush & Co. should've let inspections work, and 2. Bush & Co. should've pushed for a larger coalition (a' la Gulf War I), in case force need to be used. However, military force should not have been an immediate option, as we still had unfinished business in the Afghan-Pakistan border, a.k.a. Osama Bin Laden.
For further information please see:
* Iraq on the Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq
* Disarming Iraq by Dr. Hans Blix
Originally posted by RonB:
3) manipulation of pre-war intelligence: The 9/11 commission did not find any manipulation on the part of the administration. It appears that you do not believe their findings. I do. |
I sincerely hope that you're not being intentionally misleading; because, as you may or may not know, the 9/11 Commission did not deal directly with the issue of Iraq nor with the issue pre-war intelligence manipulation.
Originally posted by RonB:
4) unapologetic breaches to our national security: I am not willing to ignore breaches to our national security, and I would hope that President Bush doesn't either ( I won't speak to the "unapologetic" part, yet - I'm waiting, and hoping, that someone in the Bush administration accepts responsibility for that major mistake and apologizes ). If this plays out like many previous instances, I believe that Bush is bringing pressure to bear behind the scenes - he seldom "outs" those who need to 'fess up - he lets them do it on their own or quietly removes them from their position of trust. |
I agree, Bush & Co. should apologize for the repeated national security failures, including the lack of W.M.D.(s) in Iraq.
Originally posted by RonB:
5) tolerate the questionable expenditure of our fellow citizens' blood: I don't tolerate the "questionable" expenditure of our fellow citizens' blood. But then, I don't think that the war in Iraq is a "questionable" expenditure. What I myself find hard to believe is that a great number of otherwise humanitarian individuals in America would so callously discount the value of foreigners' blood. It seems to be the group-think that the blood of 932 Americans are worth more than the blood of thousands, if not tens of thousands of Iraqis, or Sudanese, or Somalians. To me, that appears to be xenophobia. I wonder if people who think like that would be willing to come to the aid of a french woman being attacked by an American on a street corner in Paris. After all, the American's blood is worth so much more. Well, actually I know of SOME Americans who would - they are called soldiers, and many of them are in Iraq right now. |
Nice bait-and-switch. Look, no one will argue against the premise that aiding our fellow human-beings is a laudable goal. Shoot, I would certainly come to the rescue of a French woman -- where do I sign up? :) And, by the way, you're absolutely correct, as a former enlisted man, I met many brave young men that without hesitation would've risked their lives to defend another fellowman. Likewise, I now count myself equally lucky to know many Democratic friends and, yes, many Liberal friends, that would also risk themselves to come to aid of another. That said, Mr. Bush did not say that we were invading Iraq to help our fellowmen -- Mr. Bush, at the time, offered one reason: Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's only after W.M.D.(s) failed to turn up that Mr. Bush invoked the humanitarian aspect of the war. Ha, I would've loved to have seen Mr. Bush & Co. make the case for invading Iraq under the guise of "Nation Building" and "Humanitarian Aid" -- that would've caused such a feud within the Republican party, it would've beautiful to watch.
Originally posted by RonB:
6) brand loyalty to Bush: No. I am quite frankly extremely disappointed in the way Bush has pandered to the Democrats by approving more spending bills, for more money, than any president in recent history. I am disappointed that he has not used his position to persuade the Republican senators to break the unconstitutional blockage of his judicial nominees or to make more recess appointments. There are MANY areas in which I disagree with Bush. What I AM opposed to is the unsubstantiated charges, accusations, and innuendo that are constantly being tossed about in the media, and in these boards. You can call that brand loyalty if you'd like. |
Man, you're a true believer. I salute. And, like you, I understand that ultimetly it's about "personal values." So, once again, let me relly on a couple of sentences I've used on this board before:
Democrats and Republicans have very different and honestly held ideas on what choices we should make, rooted in fundamentally different views of how we should meet our common challenges at home and how we should play our role in the world. Democrats want to build an America of shared responsibilities and shared opportunities and more global cooperation, acting alone only when we must.
We think the role of government is to give people the tools and conditions to make the most of their lives. Republicans believe in an America run by the right people, their people, in a world in which we act unilaterally when we can, and cooperate when we have to.
I say Amen! And I'll see you November, 2nd.
You can read the rest here.
Message edited by author 2004-08-13 16:51:04.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2004 11:10:15 PM · #256 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
Originally posted by RonB:
Now, for something REALLY significant, perhaps you could actually address their findings. Or do you automatically discount those based solely on the source of funding?
The tendency of some folks to completely discount information based on the source's funding is rather ludicrous. That's like saying that you wouldn't eat an apple that someone gave you if the money they used to pay for it came from their employer, a company that is in the business of producing pesticides.
Although I can certainly understand why liberals take this position. It allows them to discount everything that doesn't support their position using Kevin Bacon's six degrees of separation.
Ron |
The Center is not only funded by Exxon/Mobile but is quite directly connected with the Western Fuels Association. Surely, you aren't suggesting that this Center exists for altruistic purposes that have science and truth as its only function. A google search of Western Fuels Assoc. revealed this lawsuit against a handful of organizations promoting renewable energy sources, which had the gall to publish an add suggesting fossil fuels are hurting the environment. Could it possibly be that the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change might be just a teeny bit biased in their research and how they offer their findings to the public?
Could it be that Western Fuels Association, an co-op of utility companies that produces coal wants to negate the effects of burning coal on the environment? |
Very nice job, indeed, of continuing to avoid responding to the findings of the Center, and just attacking their source of funding. Thanks for the additional information on that, but it really doesn't address the validity or non-validity of the studies upon which their conclusions are based. When ( if ) you get around to refuting those studies, you may have something.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 11:13:33 PM · #257 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
My response to the idea of the media being a liberal run organization is to point out that my local paper was bought out in the past decade by the A.H. Belo Corporation. Rhode Island is a largely Democratic state with a very independent flair (dems are frequently known to vote for republicans--I've done so, and vice versa). Yet, our one major paper is now owned by a strictly Republican, Texas-based, media organization which as supported every Republican candidate since Ike. Here is a list of the other media outlets they own:
Publishing and Newspapers
* The Dallas Morning News
* Denton Record Chronicle
* Al Dia (Dallas)
* The Providence Journal
* Rhode Island Monthly
* The Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA)
* The Business Press (Riverside, CA)
* La Prensa (Riverside, CA)
Television
Broadcasting
* WFAA-TV - Dallas
* KHOU-TV - Houston
* KENS-TV - San Antonio
* KBEJ-TV - San Antonio
* KVUE-TV - Austin
* KTVK-TV - Phoenix
* KASW-TV - Phoenix
* KMSB-TV - Tucson
* KTTU-TV - Tucson
* KING-TV - Seattle
* KONG-TV - Seattle
* KREM-TV - Spokane
* KSKN-TV - Spokane
* KTVB-TV - Boise
* KGW-TV - Portland
* KMOV-TV - St. Louis
* WCNC-TV - Charlotte
* WVEC-TV - Hampton
* WWL-TV - New Orleans
* WHAS-TV - Louisvile
Cable
* Texas Cable News
* NorthWest Cable News
* Arizona News Channel
* ¡Más! Arizona
* Local News on Cable - Hampton
* NewsWatch on Channel 15 - New Orleans
My sources were
Who Owns What and Handbook of Texas Online. |
Always a funding issue with you isn't it?
So, a question: Do you always represent the views of your employer? or would you claim to be independent in your thinking? If you claim to be independent, then why can't others, as well?
Ron |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 11:20:42 PM · #258 |
Originally posted by melismatica:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Not in reference to 2000. And nothing to do with which of the two candidates in the US would win.
I believe I understand the general foundation of the electoral college idea - that each state would send a representative to Washington, on horse back, to vote for the next president. Given the limitations in communications, computing, etc it makes historical sense.
Is there a reason to continue that process, rather than switching to the popular vote, which would appear to move the US further towards becoming a more direct representative democracy, rather than via a couple of layers of proxies ? |
The process does seem a bit antiquated and confusing. For Rhode Islanders, it is a real drag because we only get 3 electoral votes. :-D |
Without it, the popular vote for your entire state could be negated by the popular vote of San Antonio, Texas. Would you rather have your 3 electoral votes count for Kerry or be negated completely by San Antonio's votes for Bush?
Ron |
|
|
|
08/12/2004 11:57:45 PM · #259 |
<<< Yet, our one major paper is now owned by a strictly Republican, Texas-based, media organization which [h]as supported every Republican candidate since Ike. >>>
Even Goldwater over Johnson? |
|
|
|
08/13/2004 09:07:01 AM · #260 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Always a funding issue with you isn't it?
So, a question: Do you always represent the views of your employer? or would you claim to be independent in your thinking? If you claim to be independent, then why can't others, as well?
Ron |
You can, if you like to be unemployed. It's that simple. |
|
|
|
08/13/2004 09:32:29 AM · #261 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
Always a funding issue with you isn't it?
So, a question: Do you always represent the views of your employer? or would you claim to be independent in your thinking? If you claim to be independent, then why can't others, as well?
Ron |
You can, if you like to be unemployed. It's that simple. |
I am, always have been, and have never been fired or laid-off by an employer, even when I've openly challenged their position in meetings where they were pressuring employee's to write letters to their representatives on behalf of their position ( this was before PAC's came along ). As it was, I was hoping that they WOULD take action against me so I could take them to court. But all that happened is that instead of having employee meetings, they started sending letters to employees at home ( before e-mail came along ).
Ron |
|
|
|
08/13/2004 12:37:55 PM · #262 |
1st, well said bdobe on that last long ass post ;)
2nd, to get back to the original subject of this thread, this article from the Washington Post is a good read on the subject and also the problem with "soft money" in campaign politics.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2004 01:04:45 PM · #263 |
Oh, shucks, Wally... here goes Mr. Straight-Shooter ("I just want the facts, please") pulling his Rumsfeld-like rhetorical jujitsu again. (Please see my post above for more on Rumsfeld's verbal jujitsu, and Ron's use of the Republican talking points.)
Clearly, Ron is aware that things are not shaded in the deep-blacks and bright-whites of the "Leave it to Beaver" sitcom, as indicated below:
Originally posted by RonB:
The purpose of mainstream newspapers is NOT to provide news and it is NOT to inform the public - the purpose of mainstream newspapers is to make money for its owners by selling as many newspapers as it can. |
Yet, Ron purports to believe that journalists have utter freedom to represent their own views, independent of their employer's bottom-line interests.
Ron asked of Melismatica, on the subject of journalists and media ownership:
Originally posted by RonB:
So, a question: Do you always represent the views of your employer? or would you claim to be independent in your thinking? If you claim to be independent, then why can't others, as well? |
See, Ron knows very well that things are not cut-and-dry; yet, when expedient, he's willing to present things as if they were, just to advance his point. Now, this is why, like Bush & Co., Ron has lost all credibility in my eyes.
Ron even had the gall to pose the rhetorical question of whether who owns the media is important:
Originally posted by RonB:
Always a funding issue with you isn't it? |
Jeesh, the simple answer is, "Hell yes, ownership matters." Isn't this the reason why Republican supporters/Conservatives had to build their own "independent" media? (Again, please see my post above for more.)
Ron, like Bush & Co., aims to distract with "simple-speak," and overwhelm the audience into submission with his rapid responses.
Ron, as you're aware and acknowledged, things are not simple nor black-and-white, so stop pretending that they are. (And, for anyone else reading this, continue exercising EXTREME SKEPTICISM when it comes to Bush & Co.; as their lies have already cost 936 of our fellow citizens' lives. Yes Ron, when I first posted the casualty count two days ago the figure stood at 932, we've been averaging about 2 casualties a day. Again, for more on this subject (including civilian casualty counts and WMDs), please read my post above. And now, back to work, posting to this message board is too time consuming, I don't know how Ron does it -- he must be retired or independently wealthy.)
Message edited by author 2004-08-13 16:59:22.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2004 08:16:00 PM · #264 |
Hmmm. Speaking of a SMEAR campaign. It looks like bdobe is conducting his own, and I am the target. And, it appears that a one-thread smear is not enough - even though I haven't had a chance to respond to his posts in this thread, he repeats it in another thread so that I have to post my reply twice - after I finish formulating my response, which is taking more time than usual because I'm working between power outages due to the hurricane here in Florida.
It would appear that, like most liberals, bdobe has found that he cannot win a debate based on facts - so he must stoop to invalid suppositions, false analogies, unsubstantiated allegations and accusations, and innuendo - but nothing of substance. He and his liberal comrades attack funding, and they attack sources, but it appears that they can seldom back up their statements once I show their fallacy by exposing the facts. They CLAIM science, but quote commentary - because they seem unable to counter scientific studies. Instead, they attack the "funding" of the studies - how lame. More often then not their sub-headings are flat out not supported by the text and/or links they provide - but they sure do sound good to the liberals who resound with a YES! YES! Once you take away the adjectives, unsubstantiated allegations, and innuendo in their arguments, you're left with nothing of substance. It's all sizzle but no steak, as the saying goes. Smoke and Mirrors.
I will get around to responding to these latest smears in due time. But when I do, I will rebut, as usual, based on facts, not fiction - substantiated statements, not the innuendo and false analogy that are the signs of desperation.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/13/2004 08:33:55 PM · #265 |
This is a photo challenge site for geez sakes... not a political arena. There's enuff of that stuff/arguing in the real world. Give it a rest!!
MEDINFO2000 |
|
|
|
08/13/2004 09:19:30 PM · #266 |
First of all, good luck out there. That goes for all DPCers in the area.
Secondly, Ron, you've described the subject line of this thread very accurately:
Originally posted by RonB:
[I]nvalid suppositions, false analogies, unsubstantiated allegations and accusations, and innuendo - but nothing of substance. |
However, I don't see the muzzle of your rebuttals aimed against the allegations that started this entire thread.
Finally, here's what others reading this should know: What you have here are two men that are passionate about their country; here are two former military men (Ron, Air Force, correct? And, in my case, USMC) which view the current Commander-in-Chief very differently, including the choices that Mr. Bush made on Iraq; and, ultimately, two men that sincerely believe that the country they love is better off when stewarded by the party they support.
..........
P.S. I can only speak for myself, so I'll let Ron speak for himself. I'm sorry that the current political season has encroached this space, which for many of us is a refuge from "the real world," as Medinfo2000 put it.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2004 04:49:32 PM · #267 |
In case you missed it , from the New York Times:
If this doesn't put a final nail in this coffin - and show just how slimey the Bush campaign is for not stopping this whole thing before it started, I don't know what will.
Folks, how can you vote for a man who allows his people to put this stuff on the air??
 |
|
|
|
08/20/2004 06:24:39 PM · #268 |
Since Funding matters - here's a similar chart for the 527's that are saying that Bush lied, and that he was A.W.O.L.
Folks, how can you vote for a man who allows his people to put this stuff on the air?
Ron |
|
|
|
08/21/2004 09:07:29 AM · #269 |
RonB,
Swift Boat Liars for Bush purported to be truth-telling men of virtue telling it like it is, for no political agenda.
The NYT article shows them to be abject LIARS, and worse, to be secretely funded and aided by a hodge-podge of Bush's personal friends and political cronies.
Your chart purports to show that Democratic think tanks and political action organizations have some kinds of coordination with each other or the Kerry campaign.
So what.
There is nothing deceptive, unethical, or dishonest with that. Nothing unAmerican at its heart, nothing despicable - it is all above board and as it should be.
But you can not say that about the Swift boat campaign of lies. Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, George Bush - they all let braver men do their dying for them in Viet Nam.
And then they fund lying slime to cast doubt on an actual hero - John Kerry. Someone who served his country with distinction during a time of war instead of going AWOL.
And somehow Karl Rove and George Bush sit back in their ethical squalor and actually find people to defend them.
People like you, RonB. Why do you do it?
Bush and Rove slimed McCain and tried to call him a traitor to his country while he was a POW in Viet Nam! A man who suffered years in a cage, was not, they said, as patriotic as they were!!!
This from rich elite frat boys who " had other priorities" and did what needed to be done to avoid the front.
Sliming. Lying. Actually, getting other people to lie for them. This is their modus operandi. This is their politics.
And you defend them. Why?? Out of reflex?
Or do you respect the ability to successfully deceive more than the ability to successfully govern? |
|
|
|
08/21/2004 01:37:31 PM · #270 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
RonB,
Swift Boat Liars for Bush purported to be truth-telling men of virtue telling it like it is, for no political agenda. |
One truth, one falsehood.
The truth: They purport to be truth-telling men of virtue telling it like it is.
The falsehood: for no political agenda.
First, I take it that you do NOT believe that they are a) truth-telling, or b) men of virtue. My questions to you would be:
if option a) - Which of their allegations is NOT true? What kind of irrefutable proof exists to support your claim?
if option b) - well, I can't argue whether they are or are not "men of virtue"; that is for God to judge. What I will say is that, so far, no irrefutable proof has been shown to discount what they claim. Mostly it is a he said/he said debate.
Secondly, as for your claim that they claim no political agenda: Their web site, swiftvets.com clearly states "For more than thirty years, most Vietnam veterans kept silent as we were maligned as misfits, addicts, and baby killers. Now that a key creator of that poisonous image is seeking the Presidency we have resolved to end our silence". That sounds like a political agenda to me.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
The NYT article shows them to be abject LIARS, and worse, to be secretely funded and aided by a hodge-podge of Bush's personal friends and political cronies. |
The article you refer to shows that there are unproven claims by both sides. I don't know how you can claim that the article shows the swift boat veterans to be "abject LIARS". Those are, of course, YOUR words, not the claims of the NYTimes. You say that the SBV are secretely funded - not so - they are a 527 group, and just like ACT, or MoveOn.org, their finances are open to inspection in accordance with the laws governing such groups. The source of their funding should not be of importance, any more than the source of the pro-Kerry/anti-Bush 527's funding. What you SHOULD be concentrating on is whether they are telling the truth or not. And THAT is the unanswered question right now, and may be for some time to come.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Your chart purports to show that Democratic think tanks and political action organizations have some kinds of coordination with each other or the Kerry campaign. |
Not true. The chart purports nothing. It merely shows associations. Any "purporting" exists only in the eye of the beholder.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
So what. |
So what, indeed. But what's good for the goose should be good for the gander.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
There is nothing deceptive, unethical, or dishonest with that. Nothing unAmerican at its heart, nothing despicable - it is all above board and as it should be. |
Apparently you feel that there IS something deceptive, unethical, or dishonest with SBVFT; something unAmerican at its heart; despicable. But I don't see what's deceptive, what's unethical, what's dishonest, what's unAmerican - all that is speculative, and will remain so unless REAL proof makes its way forward. As for despicable - well, that is always a matter of opinion.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
But you can not say that about the Swift boat campaign of lies. |
Still no proof that it is a campaign of lies. Still a he said/he said debate.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, George Bush - they all let braver men do their dying for them in Viet Nam. |
Innuendo. Ignored.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
And then they fund lying slime to cast doubt on an actual hero - John Kerry. |
1) I don't believe that you will find any of their names on the donor lists of any PAC's or 527's.
2) You have no proof that any of the PAC's or 527's are "lying slime"
3) It would appear that Kerry's "actual" heroism is being questioned, by others who claim to have been there when he was. You assume that he is an 'actual hero' based on HIS word and some old military documents. Others claim that HIS word is false ( and have shown it to be false in some cases ( Christmas in Cambodia, for example )), and that the military documents do not reflect the true circumstances. If there is doubt - it goes both ways. There are doubts about Kerry, and doubts about the SBVFT. In all likelihood, there are some accurate recollections and some erroneous memories on both sides.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Someone who served his country with distinction during a time of war instead of going AWOL. |
Can't resist the opportunity to propogate the Bush-bash AWOL claim, can you? Repeat it often enough and you may actually begin to believe it's true.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
And somehow Karl Rove and George Bush sit back in their ethical squalor and actually find people to defend them. |
And you have some kind of proof that Karl and George went out looking for people to defend them?
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
People like you, RonB. Why do you do it? |
Because people like you keep telling lies about them, and making false allegations against them.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Bush and Rove slimed McCain and tried to call him a traitor to his country while he was a POW in Viet Nam! A man who suffered years in a cage, was not, they said, as patriotic as they were!!! |
See what I mean? Neither Bush nor Rove EVER tried to call McCain a traitor; never even HINTED that he was; and NEVER questioned his patriotism. EVER. I challenge you to produce ONE quote in which either of them did any of those things.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
This from rich elite frat boys who " had other priorities" and did what needed to be done to avoid the front.
Sliming. Lying. Actually, getting other people to lie for them. This is their modus operandi. This is their politics. |
Just so much innuendo.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
And you defend them. Why?? Out of reflex? |
Well, first of all, I don't defend "them" against the truth, but I do defend them against lies and unsubstantiated accusations. I will also defend YOU and your right to state your BELIEFS, your OPINIONS, and your UNDERSTANDINGS. And if someone LIES about you, I will defend you.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Or do you respect the ability to successfully deceive more than the ability to successfully govern? |
Nope. I respect the ability to state fact as fact, and opinion as opinion. Present the facts, and you won't see me debate it ( though I might offer a comparison to the opponent - as I did with the chart ). Note that I didn't Challenge the Chart you posted or its "truthfullness" - I just offered a look at a similar chart of the "other" side.
Ron
Message edited by author 2004-08-21 13:42:16. |
|
|
|
08/21/2004 02:52:50 PM · #271 |
RonB.....keep on keepin on. We need the balance.
bdobe....USMC. Thanks for your service. hoorah!
medinfo2000....even photographers have political views. I am very happy that this avenue exits for "airing" the laundry.
For the rest of the regulars.......get a copy of the book "Unfit for Command". Especially for those who spent their money on Farenheight 911. I repeat myself again. You first must know the "other side" to establish your successful arguments. The evidence given in the book is worthy of at least a few minutes pondering. Even if you choose to discard it as BS as I choose to do with much of MM's presentations, it is "right" to understand the opposing version.
If the actions of Mr. Kerry under fire are true as described in the SBVFT book, and his personal journal accounts are questionable,and then coupled with his public record of accusations of the very men he served with upon his return, and his present intention of being commander in cheif.......it truly requires a serious look at the character of the individual. Regardless of whether you like his politics.
Remember that Barabas was set free so the Christ could be crucified. Makes me wonder about the rational thought process of an angry crowd.
Flash |
|
|
|
08/24/2004 10:11:50 AM · #272 |
Originally posted by RonB:
[quote=gingerbaker] RonB,
Swift Boat Liars for Bush purported to be truth-telling men of virtue telling it like it is, for no political agenda. |
One truth, one falsehood.
The truth: They purport to be truth-telling men of virtue telling it like it is.
The falsehood: for no political agenda.
First, I take it that you do NOT believe that they are a) truth-telling, or b) men of virtue. My questions to you would be:
if option a) - Which of their allegations is NOT true? What kind of irrefutable proof exists to support your claim?
Uhhh... Did you LOOK at the chart below? Try looking again. Someone there is lying.
Then try reading any of the myriad of articles which show that all available historical evidence refutes the statements of the S.B.V's. Including the documents for their own medals.
if option b) - well, I can't argue whether they are or are not "men of virtue"; that is for God to judge. What I will say is that, so far, no irrefutable proof has been shown to discount what they claim. Mostly it is a he said/he said debate.
You are misinformed.
Secondly, as for your claim that they claim no political agenda: Their web site, swiftvets.com clearly states "For more than thirty years, most Vietnam veterans kept silent as we were maligned as misfits, addicts, and baby killers. Now that a key creator of that poisonous image is seeking the Presidency we have resolved to end our silence". That sounds like a political agenda to me.
It certainly sounds like a *moral* issue to them - but that is the point. They portray themselves as independent in their commercial, which they are not. Now it comes out that one of them actually worked for the Bush campaign.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
The NYT article shows them to be abject LIARS, and worse, to be secretely funded and aided by a hodge-podge of Bush's personal friends and political cronies. |
The article you refer to shows that there are unproven claims by both sides. I don't know how you can claim that the article shows the swift boat veterans to be "abject LIARS". Those are, of course, YOUR words, not the claims of the NYTimes.
When a person says two, diametrically opposed things about the same subject, he is lying.
You say that the SBV are secretely funded - not so - they are a 527 group, and just like ACT, or MoveOn.org, their finances are open to inspection in accordance with the laws governing such groups. The source of their funding should not be of importance, any more than the source of the pro-Kerry/anti-Bush 527's funding. What you SHOULD be concentrating on is whether they are telling the truth or not. And THAT is the unanswered question right now, and may be for some time to come.
Nonsense. What is important is that Karl Rove is behind the funding. Knowing that he is, will tell you all you need to know about the truthfulness of the ad campaign.
It will be as true as Bush's previous charge that John McCain aided the enemy during the Viet Nam war while he was a POW for 7 years.
Remember, this is the SLIMEBALL you are defending so tirelessly. Why Why Why Why Why Why Why?
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Your chart purports to show that Democratic think tanks and political action organizations have some kinds of coordination with each other or the Kerry campaign. |
Not true. The chart purports nothing. It merely shows associations. Any "purporting" exists only in the eye of the beholder.
Why do you do always pull that sort of thing, professeur?
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
So what. |
So what, indeed. But what's good for the goose should be good for the gander.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
There is nothing deceptive, unethical, or dishonest with that. Nothing unAmerican at its heart, nothing despicable - it is all above board and as it should be. |
Apparently you feel that there IS something deceptive, unethical, or dishonest with SBVFT; something unAmerican at its heart; despicable. But I don't see what's deceptive, what's unethical, what's dishonest, what's unAmerican - all that is speculative, and will remain so unless REAL proof makes its way forward. As for despicable - well, that is always a matter of opinion.
Oh, here we go again. RonB and his "real proof" criteria ploy again. Good grief, man!!
There is not a shred of proof that anything these Swift Boat Liars assert is true! ALL the hard evidence, all the testimony of first-hand witnesses says they are LIARS! And you are demanding "real proof"!! :D :D :D
At least you sort of admit that it WOULD be dispicable IF there was proof. A big step there.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
But you can not say that about the Swift boat campaign of lies. |
Still no proof that it is a campaign of lies. Still a he said/he said debate.
The BURDEN OF PROOF IS NOT ON KERRY. This is why both sides in this filthy matter are not equal. The side with the burden of proof has none. The other side has it all.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, George Bush - they all let braver men do their dying for them in Viet Nam. |
Innuendo. Ignored.
Innuendo?????? Ignored by you, yes, because you have no response, but innuendo????
These men all did whatever it took to avoid their obligation to fight in Viet Nam, despite the fact that they supported the war. They got their deferments by hook or by crook, and yes, indeed, that meant they let other and better men do their dying for them.
It's called cowardice. And because they are War-Promoting Hawks to this day, anxious to let other folks' kids go off and die for them, it is hypocracy of the highest and most base order.
Innuendo, my foot.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
And then they fund lying slime to cast doubt on an actual hero - John Kerry. |
1) I don't believe that you will find any of their names on the donor lists of any PAC's or 527's.
Course not. Doesn't mean they were not behind it. Admit it - don't you think they were?
2) You have no proof that any of the PAC's or 527's are "lying slime"
Never said that. Love playing this little splitting hairs semantics tom foolery game you enjoy so much. ;(
3) It would appear that Kerry's "actual" heroism is being questioned, by others who claim to have been there when he was. You assume that he is an 'actual hero' based on HIS word and some old military documents. Others claim that HIS word is false ( and have shown it to be false in some cases ( Christmas in Cambodia, for example )), and that the military documents do not reflect the true circumstances. If there is doubt - it goes both ways. There are doubts about Kerry, and doubts about the SBVFT. In all likelihood, there are some accurate recollections and some erroneous memories on both sides.
Wrong. John Kerry is a hero because of his deeds. It NEVER had to do with anything he said, because he doesn't go around crowing about his heroism, or wearing flight suits for photo ops. His medals were EARNED, and they were awarded not because of anything he said or did about himself - that is not how the system works. The officers and men around him nominated him and provided the info for formal reviews, which made into official reports - the "old" documents you reference.
These men who "claim to have been there when he was" were NOT there when he was. Some were not even in Viet Nam at all when Kerry was there. All but one served on other boats, related or unrelated to Kerry.
In other words, none of the swift boat liars, who claim to have served with Kerry, actually served with him - with the possible exception of one guy. ( Whether this guy was present at any of the times of issue , I have never heard any evidence - so, frankly, I doubt it.)
On the other hand, there are numbers of men who actually were on the same boat as Kerry during all these times - many of them life-long Republicans- and they all say the same thing - Kerry is a bona fide hero and these swift boat Liars for Bush are just that. And plenty of other officers who worked with or above Kerry say the same thing.
So, no, the doubt does not go both ways.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Someone who served his country with distinction during a time of war instead of going AWOL. |
Can't resist the opportunity to propogate the Bush-bash AWOL claim, can you? Repeat it often enough and you may actually begin to believe it's true.
Surely you do not believe it is false? More innuendo, is it? :D
Well, I suggest you go here and check this out. It has lots of "proof". Like document photostats. The documents released by the Bush administration. Analysed by someone who understands military documents. Pretty damning stuff:
//www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm
Lawrence J. Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, Reserve Affairs, Installations and Logistics under Ronald Reagan from 1981-1985 looked at it and said basically - "he was awol".
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
And somehow Karl Rove and George Bush sit back in their ethical squalor and actually find people to defend them. |
And you have some kind of proof that Karl and George went out looking for people to defend them?
No, Ron, I don't have proof. They just look up and they find they have them. Sigh.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
People like you, RonB. Why do you do it? |
Because people like you keep telling lies about them, and making false allegations against them.
Right. The whole world is wrong, and you are right, damn the evidence ( which you refuse to seek out, anyway), right?
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Bush and Rove slimed McCain and tried to call him a traitor to his country while he was a POW in Viet Nam! A man who suffered years in a cage, was not, they said, as patriotic as they were!!! |
See what I mean? Neither Bush nor Rove EVER tried to call McCain a traitor; never even HINTED that he was; and NEVER questioned his patriotism. EVER. I challenge you to produce ONE quote in which either of them did any of those things.
Whoa!! Such outrage!! :D
Don't take my word for it - HERE IS JOHN MCCAIN TAKING GEORGE BUSH TO TASK FOR IT PERSONALLY DURING THE 2000 CAMPAIGN! ( The Kerry campaign is airing this video, but I can't figure out how to provide the link)
FROM lARRY kING lIVE:
SCRIPT:
McCain: Let me tell you what really went over the line. Governor Bush had an event, and he paid for it, and standing, and stood next to the spokesman for a fringe veterans group. That fringe veteran said that John McCain had abandoned the veterans. Now I donât know how if you can understand this George, but that really hurts.
Bush: Yeah.
McCain: That really hurts. And so five United State senators, Vietnam veterans, heroes. Some of them really incredible heroes, wrote George a letter and said âapologize.â You should, you should be ashamed.
Also:
Rove Suggests Former POW McCain Committed Treason and Fathered Child With Black Prostitute. In 2000, McCain operatives in SC accused Rove of spreading rumors against McCain, such as âsuggestions that McCain had committed treason while a prisoner of war, and had fathered a child by a black prostitute,â according to the New Yorker. [New Yorker, 5/12/03]
After Rove Denied Role In McCain Whisper Campaign, Reporters Concluded He Was Behind It. A December 1999 Dallas Morning News linked Rove to a series of campaign dirty tricks, including his College Republican efforts, allegedly starting a whisper campaign about Ann Richard being too gay-friendly, spreading stories about Jim Hightowerâs involvement in a kickback scheme and leaking the educational history of Lena Guerrero. The article also outlined current dirty tricks and whisper campaigns against McCain in South Carolina, including that âMcCain may be unstable as a result of being tortured while a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.â (DMN, 12/2/99) After the article was published, Rove blasted Slater in the Manchester, NH airport, ânose to noseâ according to one witness, with Rove claiming Slater had âharmed his reputation,â Slater later noted. But according to one witness, âWhat was interesting then is that everyone on the campaign charter concluded that Rove was responsible for rumors about McCain.â [The Nation, 3/5/01]
There is plenty more should you need it.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
This from rich elite frat boys who " had other priorities" and did what needed to be done to avoid the front.
Sliming. Lying. Actually, getting other people to lie for them. This is their modus operandi. This is their politics. |
Just so much innuendo.
Your favorite word again. Innuendo.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
And you defend them. Why?? Out of reflex? |
Well, first of all, I don't defend "them" against the truth, but I do defend them against lies and unsubstantiated accusations. I will also defend YOU and your right to state your BELIEFS, your OPINIONS, and your UNDERSTANDINGS. And if someone LIES about you, I will defend you.
Well, I have provided you a lot of PROOF here today. I wonder if you will step up to the plate
Message edited by author 2004-08-24 10:33:22. |
|
|
|
08/24/2004 10:42:19 AM · #273 |
Well, Paul Krugman, award-winning economist and columnist for the NYT puts it all down better than I ever could. My position exactly:
The Rambo Coalition
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: August 24, 2004
Almost a year ago, on the second anniversary of 9/11, I predicted "an ugly, bitter campaign - probably the nastiest of modern American history." The reasons I gave then still apply. President Bush has no positive achievements to run on. Yet his inner circle cannot afford to see him lose: if he does, the shroud of secrecy will be lifted, and the public will learn the truth about cooked intelligence, profiteering, politicization of homeland security and more.
But recent attacks on John Kerry have surpassed even my expectations. There's no mystery why. Mr. Kerry isn't just a Democrat who might win: his life story challenges Mr. Bush's attempts to confuse tough-guy poses with heroism, and bombast with patriotism.
One of the wonders of recent American politics has been the ability of Mr. Bush and his supporters to wrap their partisanship in the flag. Through innuendo and direct attacks by surrogates, men who assiduously avoided service in Vietnam, like Dick Cheney (five deferments), John Ashcroft (seven deferments) and George Bush (a comfy spot in the National Guard, and a mysterious gap in his records), have questioned the patriotism of men who risked their lives and suffered for their country: John McCain, Max Cleland and now John Kerry.
How have they been able to get away with it? The answer is that we have been living in what Roger Ebert calls "an age of Rambo patriotism." As the carnage and moral ambiguities of Vietnam faded from memory, many started to believe in the comforting clichés of action movies, in which the tough-talking hero is always virtuous and the hand-wringing types who see complexities and urge the hero to think before acting are always wrong, if not villains.
After 9/11, Mr. Bush had a choice: he could deal with real threats, or he could play Rambo. He chose Rambo. Not for him the difficult, frustrating task of tracking down elusive terrorists, or the unglamorous work of protecting ports and chemical plants from possible attack: he wanted a dramatic shootout with the bad guy. And if you asked why we were going after this particular bad guy, who hadn't attacked America and wasn't building nuclear weapons - or if you warned that real wars involve costs you never see in the movies - you were being unpatriotic.
As a domestic political strategy, Mr. Bush's posturing worked brilliantly. As a strategy against terrorism, it has played right into Al Qaeda's hands. Thirty years after Vietnam, American soldiers are again dying in a war that was sold on false pretenses and creates more enemies than it kills.
It should come as no surprise, then, that Mr. Bush - who must defend the indefensible - has turned to those who still refuse to face the truth about Vietnam.
All the credible evidence, from military records to the testimony of those who served with Mr. Kerry, confirms his wartime heroism. Why, then, are some veterans willing to join the smear campaign? Because they are angry about his later statements against the war. Yet making those statements was itself a heroic act - and what he said then rings truer than ever.
The young John Kerry spoke of leaders who sent others to their deaths because they wanted to seem tough, then "left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude." Fifteen months after George Bush strutted around in his flight suit, more and more Americans are echoing Gen. Anthony Zinni, who received a standing ovation from an audience of Marine and Navy officers when he talked about the debacle in Iraq and said of those who served in Vietnam: "We heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice. I ask you, is it happening again?"
Mr. Kerry also spoke of the moral cost of an ill-conceived war - of the atrocities soldiers find themselves committing when they can't tell friend from foe. Two words: Abu Ghraib.
Let's hope that this latest campaign of garbage and lies - initially financed by a Texas Republican close to Karl Rove, and running an ad featuring an "independent" veteran who turns out to have served on a Bush campaign committee - leads to a backlash against Mr. Bush. If it doesn't, here's the message we'll be sending to Americans who serve their country: If you tell the truth, your courage and sacrifice count for nothing.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2004 07:21:12 PM · #274 |
That is a great piece and I would have to agree he puts it down quite well. Thanks Gingerbaker.
My company recently added monitoring servers to control our web browsing on the job so I wonât fully be able to do all the research I once could at work. I hope those of you who can, will keep posting information on here. My browsing is now limited to weather.com, cnn.com and msnbc.com so my sources are limited :/
(Damn big brother!)
Here is some interesting developments in the topic of this thread Bush-Cheney lawyer resigns over veterans flap - 'Stunning double standard' in 527 media coverage
One thing is for sure, there are 5x as many anti Bush ads being aired than anti Kerry ads by the 527's, yet this one swift boat ad, which after research has been proved to be pure BS is getting ridiculous amounts of media attention. Turn to any news channel and you wonât go 5 minutes w/out hearing about it.
Bias in media? What was that one book... "What Liberal Media?" heh..
|
|
|
|
08/25/2004 07:29:40 PM · #275 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
My company recently added monitoring servers to control our web browsing on the job so I wonât fully be able to do all the research I once could at work. I hope those of you who can, will keep posting information on here. My browsing is now limited to weather.com, cnn.com and msnbc.com so my sources are limited :/
(Damn big brother!)
|
What a bunch of cold-hearted bastards, expecting you to actually work for your salary. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 06/27/2025 05:21:25 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/27/2025 05:21:25 PM EDT.
|
