»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Random Thoughts on Limbaugh and Glenn Beck
| The Alley |
|
Random Thoughts on Limbaugh and Glenn Beck |
|
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy 
|
A few things on my mind: - Why Rush Limbaugh is constantly demonized: The Left obviously feels he is a threat. No-one spends that much time and effort on someone they deem is not worthy of 'said' effort. - Why Rush Limbaugh is NOT a threat: simply put, he is not elected. His views are his own and have no direct effect on anything in the government. - The Republicans are so bland that .... ...so bland that Limbaugh symbolizes the party for many people, simply because there is no-one who upstages him. - many of his comments are said 'for effect' - kind of like teasers that he'll throw out, and then go to commercial. - Limbaugh got popular when Conservatives got tired of hearing EVERY talking head on network news being liberal. - Think for a moment: when was the last time you saw a CONSERVATIVE news anchor on network news? 20, 30 years ago? Ever? - For a conversative, seeing Dan Rather deliver the news, having to listen to his rhetoric and stressed vocal inflictions was kind of like having to listen to Rosanne Barr's grating voice deliver it. They were anxious for another Delivery Man. They got it in Limbaugh. - Who is more arrogant: O'Reilly, Limbaugh or Olbermann? Tough call, huh? LOL - Why Glenn Beck is different than Rush Limbaugh (at least for now) OR (WHY Beck's base seems to grow exponentially) a) he's a geniune goofball when he's nonpolitical- probably more like you and I than we would care to admit- Limbaugh is too stiff b) Beck doesn't trumpet his strong points hourly like Limbaugh, and has humility that Limbaugh or O'Reilly doesn't have. c) Limbaugh is bombastic - Beck is drastic d) Beck has actually started several movements toward getting people motivated in politics. Limbaugh stays in the comfort of his studio. e) While both are writers, Beck mostly writes about others, while Limbaugh refers to himself almost as much as Obama does (once every 13 words according to news sources on count.) f) Beck is a Libertarian Limbaugh is a Conservative Republican and YES, Virginia, there IS a difference. g) Beck trumpets & admits his OWN faults Limbaugh hides his and only recently granted his first interview request in a year h) for all his faults, Beck has precognicent radar on predicting certain political events (ie fall of the dollar, stimulus being a joke, ACORN, Czars, etc.) Limbaugh hasn't really broken any new ground since the election. h) Beck seems to have a strong moral compass I'm not sure Limbaugh is at all religiously motivated. Amazing isn't it? We are talking about Limbaugh who is basically NOT on TV or FM, still on the outdated AM dial almost exclusively, and he is still called the King of the Conservatives by many in both political persuasions. And both him and Glenn Beck are still just glorified DJ's, yet the Dem's fear them like cancer. - As surely as Glenn Beck's popularity has risen astronomically, his burnout will be just as rapid. No man can keep up the pace he's set for himself (books, radio, tv, appearances, interviews) and, sorry, Glenn: as sincere as you may truly be, I also think you are not emotionally stable enough to handle the pressure and fame. D*mn! I could say the say thing to Obama! I apologize for my absence: my rented body gave out on me for an extended time. PS...Tonight, Tuesday at 8PM on PBS is the Frontline special: "Obama's War". It actually embeds a reporter right on the front line (you see a shell explode next to him in the promo spot for it.) It's focus is how the war looks EXACTLY to the front line soldiers, and that's a rare look on Afghanistan. I have said for months to friends that the news refuses to show actual war footage of Afghanistan beyond 5 second clips. Here is finally a touch/smell/taste glimpse of what it's really like to be a soldier there and 20 years old. If I'm offbase on this post, sound off! |
||
| © Copyright 2009 Jeff Feezle - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The Left obviously feels he is a threat. Obviously...and with good reason. They don't like people who raise points they don't want raised or ask questions they don't want asked. When Obama calls them out by name, he is elevating their status and giving credence to their views. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: A threat? Or just really, really irritating?  I would put Limbaugh, Michael Moore, and author Dan Brown just about on a par with each other, though they clearly sit in very different camps. Each is just this side of absurd while still somehow avoiding the mantle of clown. I suspect what makes them irritating to rational people is the irrational appeal they seem to have for so many. They would be honestly funny if they didn't take themselves so seriously. quote: And Republicans don't find that scary? quote: Jesus was never elected to office, either. Nor, I believe was Martin Luther King, Jr.? Or Norma McCorvey. Indeed, I suspect we could list a fairly large number of people who, in spite of never holding public office, managed to visit a great and lasting effect on society and culture, either through circumstance or force of character. I tend to agree Limbaugh is no threat (except perhaps to those he represents). Nonetheless, I remain convinced that words have power, power often much greater than that of votes. We can always impeach an elected official; there's not a damn thing you can do to someone who -- right or wrong -- is admired and loved for what he says. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
A mosquito is simply irritating when it bites you. It's a threat when it carries malaria. When a president of the United States calls out antagonists by name (something I have never seen done in presidential history) they are a threat, not merely irritants, unless of course the president can't handle simple irritants, either...in which case, he is DEFINITELY in the wrong job!  |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Hey, Mike, hate to call you out, but the last time the WH called out the media in a major way was Nixon vs. the Press. He had words for just about anyone who opposed his policies; he held nothing back. The press promptly waited until a perfect storm scandal occured by the Nixton administration. A press friend of mine once said something astute: that all Presidential scandals are basically the same- the only difference is how much the press crucifies them. EVERY president since then has had their own scandal. When you think about it, compared to today's political scandals, a simple breakin to a Political HQ office is really small potatoes. Looking back, I'm amazed it got the press it did. Nixon hated them - they hated Nixon. I felt that both instances of scandal, Clinton and Nixon were both hugely exagerrated in importance, mostly for political gain. Iran/Contra scandal, for instance, is much more serious in my mind, and somehow Reagan weathered it. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: LOL. And is that the only thing in recent history you never saw done before, Mike? After the election, I would think you'd be getting used to it. quote: Rush Limbaugh is NOT the press. He's an entertainer. Like Oprah, only not as rich. (In retrospect, that comparison probably isn't fair to Oprah. Limbaugh is more like Jerry Springer, I suppose. Except I hear Springer can dance?) |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
And is that the only thing in recent history you never saw done before, Mike? LOL! No, we have a lot of firsts here, Ron but that one is pretty extraordinary. Look att he Bush bashers, from the press, from talk shows, from fellow politicians...they had some extremely nasty things to say about him, even to the point of making movies blasing him in the worst possible light. Anyone see Bush call out any one of them, personally? Clinton had his share, too, during the Monica munch. Did he call out anyone by name? It just isn't done. It's not presidential. Nixon called out "the press". I don't recall him pointing out any one individual. As you have said in the past, Ron, it's what goes with the job. Challenging individuals like Obama has would relate to Chicago politics, perhaps, but is really our of line in the White House. Maybe some should tell Obama how big of a favor he is doing Limbaugh and Hannity by elevating them to the status of personal antagonists. I'm sure they appreciate his building up their audiences |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Sorry to interrupt again, Mike, but you're a bit factually distracted about Nixon not calling out the Press by name: He personally named the attack dogs of the time-era: The Washington Post. Remember the two houndogs Woodward and Bernstein? Even before the Watergate story broke, the Post was piling on stories that questioned Nixon's moral reasoning and 'go-it-alone' strategies. Nixon also verbally alienated the 'Hippies' (that was me at the time, and No Sir, I didn't like it. )"Verbally alienated" - euphemism for cussing someone out in Obama-speak  But I get your point. Clinton DID call out the media, too: he was convinced that there was a vast Right-Wing conspiracy that piloted the news organizations into hating him. Hillary's auto-biography devoted multiple-pages on this subject. They both obviously still believe it because Bill Clinton brought it up just last week in an interview. The media is always in the tank for Dem's right off the bat, but toward the end of each Dem's administration, the press seems to turn on the Dem's: Kennedy, Carter, Johnson, Clinton. Remember the media's reaction to each of them at the end? |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
To Ron: You hit the nail on the head with your first line about the blandness of the Repubs. My point, too. They are waaaay too quiet, offering too simple of solutions, and seem to take a backseat approach to driving right now. My guess is that they are waiting for the youth in Obama to self-destruct so they won't have to be seen as the villians when reelection time comes. Notice how the cable news is shifting to the specific elections coming up, and how the health quagmire bill has negatively impacted some of the Dem's chances for reelection? This health care bill, good or bad, will be a voting referendum for Dem's, and they better get it right. The people wanted a Cadallic, and they are settling for a Khia, but paying a Cadillac tax (er..penalty) for it. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dan Brown never pretended he was writing other than fiction. The research makes it entertaining, but is clearly somewhat slanted. He still uses all of it in a fictional fashion; that's why there is a disclaimer at the beginning of each book. Limbaugh and Beck make no such claims... Mr. O'Reilly, like Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Beck frequently colors the truth heavily and then denies it, despite being on tape. If all these gentlemen were acknowledging the amount of fiction they were passing off as reality, as Dan Brown does — plainly labeling each of his books a novel — I would have no quarrel. Each of them claims to be telling the truth, however. Some of them are actually committing an assault against the language. I consider Mr. Limbaugh's use of the word Fascist to be an insult to the English language and to the attempt to attach reality to language in writing. I believe he in particular is fond of preempting charges that might well be leveled against him by using them against others first, regardless of the amount of truth involved. He has attempted to do the same thing by calling feminists feminazis as catchy, clever and loathsome coinage as I have ever heard. The man and his like are dangerous because of the damage he is attempting to do to the language and the thinking of the nation. It is unfortunate that the majority of the damage that has been done at this point appears to have been done to the center right Republicans, which have been virtually expunged as a viable political entity in favor of either hard right zealots or independents. I believe that this country actually needs a good Republican alternative that can take a position from the center and the near right, where a large part of the electorate feels a loyalty. Mine is much further to the left; but I'm not talking about what's specifically good for me here. I'm talking about what I believe is good for the country. The sort of wide split generated by these far right folks, who have actively gone to war against their more centrist Republican former allies by running far right Republicans against them with heavy funding from the RNC, have done their own party little good. In my highly idiosyncratic estimation. Threadbare, it's good to see you back. I'm glad to hear that you're feeling somewhat better. Welcome. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Bob I gotta say this, 'cause it's been laying heavy on my mind: Media Matters and others fact-check Limbaugh and Glenn Beck ad nauseum. I used to have a late-night AM talk show: it was four-six hours long, and it's virtually IMPOSSIBLE to talk that long without making a couple of factual errors, let alone have some with assumptive logic misinterpret an ironic statement as fact. Here is what Glenn Beck is complaining about: let's say Nancy Pelosi in a red dress is caught in back of the Kremlin kissing Putin and exchanging documents. If Glenn Beck says the possibility exists that they have some kind of secret deal and mentions that Pelosi wore a pink dress...guess what fact will be used to call Beck a liar? The dress of course! and the whole context of the statement and how important it was won't even be commented on. Worthless fact checking, and sophmoric proof of inaccuracy. You think I'm kidding? Much was made of Glenn Beck getting the Olympic city wrong (Calgary vs. Vancouver), and nobody commented on his overall point on how it bankrupted the city funds. Let's pick another example: quick, off the top of your head: name the Senator from Virginia, or the Governor. That's what you have to do when you are a radio/tv personality and it's practically impossible to be right 100% of the time. It's good to be back, and thanks, Bob, for your kindness. That was nice of you. Jeff |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I dunno, the two of them? It's quite like hearing men square off with their drunken team spirit about who's the "DADDY" on game day... They are "chesting" their passions which is awesome. Though I often hear them speaking through other men's bodies as if they have been possessed by the full grain of right or left aural moonshine, which makes one say and do crazy things, but nevertheless the essence is as American as....boots & legs?? It's scary, but oddly entertaining, as they each have an agenda: Who can out-rooster the other and stay on the air. Rush is rich enough to afford no health care insurance from his air-time and Beck is rich enough to spend most of his time trying to gain air on Rush. Good for them. The schisms of life and what we love about life in good ol' America. BUT throw Ann Coulter in there....and the effects of ingested turpentine become too clear to me, and for some reason I feel the need for a rabies shot when she speaks. "The perfection of Jews"...Oh, yes, Ann. You do polemicize the pot. "The worst offense that can be committed by a polemic is to stigmatize those who hold a contrary opinion as bad and immoral men." [John Stuart Mill, 1806-73] so to avoid the possibility of being a polemic pot calling the kettle black, I'll just pole the cat and say her statement stunk, whereas she, as a person, has all the morals a woman might tend for her perfect heaven.  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: There is indeed a disclaimer on the copyright page, Bob. It's the usual "Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, events, or locales is entirely coincidental" verbiage. On the very next page, however, you'll find Brown's very non-standard claims to historical accuracy, including: "FACT: The Priory of Sion - a European secret society founded in 1099 - is a real organization." Yada yada yada. Brown's so-called "fact," of course, didn't exist until about 1956, when convicted conman Pierre Plantard invented it. Brown, on that same page of the book, further claimed, "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." Never mind that Brown's claim is disputed by almost all academic scholars in the fields the book discusses; the sheer chutzpah of including "secret rituals" in his list of alleged accuracies struck me as incredible. I don't have a problem with Dan Brown's fiction. While promoting the book, however, in interview after interview, Brown continued to claim that the foundations of the novel were seemingly undisputed historical facts. Asked in one such interview what he would change in the book if he were writing it as non-fiction, Brown was reported to have said, "Not one thing." Like I said, Bob. Limbaugh, Moore, and Dan Brown are from the same mold. I believe people like them don't make simple mistakes of error, as threadbear appears to contend. They are liars, pure and simple, knowingly stretching truth until it fits their agenda. quote: Maybe they should shut up after three? quote: If the color of the dress is unimportant, perhaps it shouldn't be mentioned? Personally, I think every fact should be carefully investigated on its own merit. The secret deals should be held apart from the dresses. Realistically, however, I just don't have time to pursue every wild claim made by every human being with a pen or microphone. I have to make judgments, I have to filter out the obvious garbage. How to do that? In large part, I'm going to depend on a person's perceived reliability. A person who can't get the little things right is probably going to be perceived as someone who doesn't get the big things right either. Occasional mistakes, of course, can be overlooked. Repeated sloppiness, however, can not. A reporter's dependability is always going to be a reflection of their attention to detail. While no one is perfect, I just don't have time to waste on people who won't at least try to be right. When push comes to shove, if you don't actually know the color of the dress, don't pretend you do. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I wish I would shut up after three. Hi everybody!  |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Ron, I guess my point is waaaay too much time and energy is spent scrutinzing Right Wing Talk Show hosts and virtually NO TIME fact checking Pelosi's dumb claims or Biden CONSTANTLY getting things wrong. No-one since Dan Quayle has been more consistently wrong in talking facts. I just don't get it. Here are talk show hosts getting 100times the scrutiny of Obama, Pelosi or Biden, any of which has errored 100 times more severely than Beck. Why do I say that? Because Beck and Limbaugh are talking heads, nothing more. Pelosi Reid, Biden: these are lawmakers in active power, being wrong almost every time they speak. Get it right- focus the attention where it is deserved. When Obama says in 2003 to the AFL-CIO that he is 100% support of the Public Health Option, by God: hold him to account for it. His sissy attempts to pin the donkey on Fox news comes off a basement-blogger level complaint. When in Obama's book he said his most influential mentors were communists: Believe it! and hold him accountable. "Judge me by the company I keep." Ok, but when Fox does, quit lobbing ad hominems at them simply because they are the ONLY news group holding Mr. Transparency accountable. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sorry to interrupt again, Mike, but you're a bit factually distracted about Nixon not calling out the Press by name: Clinton DID call out the media, too I see no real reason for belaboring this point, threadbare. I'll leave it with Ron's comment which says it all.. Rush Limbaugh is NOT the press. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
cool cool...I was just saying it's a bit of interesting history of how each President handles the press. It's a whole story in itself. The tide is turning however, for this administration: NBC owns Saturday Night Live, and the most accurate skewering of Obama happened on their own skit. NBC! Obama's personal network. and this, Mike: I have to give GW Bush props for being such a gentleman in NOT responding to attacks. He is not thin-skinned like this Admin, nor feel the need to retaliate for every skewer. Bush stayed above the fray of media frenzy, somehow, and I think he should be commended for his maturity, at least in this topic of discussion. One last thing: Limbaugh (or FOX news' Beck/Hannity) IS sort-of the press: they are Political-Commentary. It's quasi-press for sure. For example: Limbaugh is in the media, and he's doing Op-ED commentary, same as newspapers. I'm saying he is more the press, than not. [This message has been edited by threadbear (10-14-2009 03:43 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Such as? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY. 2. AHMADINEJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it. 3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.” 4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage. 5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate. 6. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times. 7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people’s health insurance coverage — they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false 8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska — she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it’s not a windfall profits tax. 9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan. 10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation — he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie. 11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right. 12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more. 13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.” 14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won’t pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan. http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2008/10/03/biden-lies-on-obama-meeting-ahmedinijad-without-conditions-and-13-other-lies/ ...and let's not forget his beautiful campaign trail whopper.... Remember during the campaign when Democrat Biden said, “I’m just a regular guy, come have breakfast with me sometime at Rosies on Main St in my home town I’m there most mornings.” Turns out ole Rosies had been shuttered for about 4 years. Let's go back.... "Joseph Biden's Plagiarism; Michael Dukakis's 'Attack Video' – 1988 Feeding Frenzy Democratic presidential candidate Joseph R. Biden Jr., a U.S. senator from Delaware, was driven from the nomination battle after delivering, without attribution, passages from a speech by British Labor party leader Neil Kinnock. A barrage of subsidiary revelations by the press also contributed to Biden's withdrawal: a serious plagiarism incident involving Biden during his law school years; the senator's boastful exaggerations of his academic record at a New Hampshire campaign event; and the discovery of other quotations in Biden's speeches pilfered from past Democratic politicians. " http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/biden.htm Here's a despicable one.... "Biden's most disgusting falsehood is his story, repeated over many years, that his first wife and daughter were killed in 1972 in an auto accident caused by a truck driver, Mr. Curtis C. Dunn, who was impaired by alcohol. That story is a lie. Last September, as the vice-presidential debate neared, I wrote about Biden as a chronic prevaricator and self-aborbed windbag. Right after the column appeared, I received the following note from Mr. Dunn's daughter, Pamela Hamill. "Steve, Please research Joe Biden's false account of the 1972 accident that tragically took the lives of his first wife Neilia and baby daughter Amy. Vice President Biden says "A guy who drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch" killed them. This urban legend he has created has been accepted by the media as the truth. My father [Mr. Dunn] passed in 1999 and is not here to defend his honor.We have to be his voice and set the record straight. We are certainly not trying to equate Biden's loss to our father's heartache but this untruth is a character assassination." No DUI in crash that killed Biden's 1st wife, but he's implied otherwise By RACHEL KIPP The News Journal Since his vice presidential nomination, Joe Biden's 2007 statement that a "guy who allegedly ... drank his lunch" and drove the truck that struck and killed his first wife and daughter has gained national media traction. Alcohol didn't play a role in the 1972 crash, investigators found. But as recently as last week, the syndicated TV show Inside Edition aired a clip from 2001 of Biden describing the accident to an audience at the University of Delaware and saying the truck driver "stopped to drink instead of drive." The senator's statements don't jibe with news and law enforcement reports from the time, which cleared driver Curtis C. Dunn, who died in 1999, of wrongdoing. "To see it coming from [Biden's] mouth, I just burst into tears," Dunn's daughter, Glasgow resident Pamela Hamill, 44, said Wednesday. "My dad was always there for us. Now we feel like we should be there for him because he's not here to defend himself." "The rumor about alcohol being involved by either party, especially the truck driver, is incorrect," said Jerome O. Herlihy, a Delaware Superior Court judge who was chief deputy attorney general and worked with crash investigators in 1972. Herlihy said investigators discussed several possible causes for the crash, including that Biden's first wife, Neilia, turned her head and didn't see the oncoming truck as she exited the intersection of Limestone and Valley roads on Dec. 18, 1972. Neither Biden's book nor his campaign Web site directly addresses the alcohol issue, but the senator has done so publicly on at least two occasions. The New York Times reported the 2007 crowd at the University of Iowa grew silent as Biden gave his version of what happened that day. "Let me tell you a little story," The newspaper quoted Biden as saying. "I got elected when I was 29, and I got elected November the 7th. And on Dec. 18 of that year, my wife and three kids were Christmas shopping for a Christmas tree. A tractor-trailer, a guy who allegedly -- and I never pursued it -- drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch, broadsided my family and killed my wife instantly, and killed my daughter instantly, and hospitalized my two sons, with what were thought to be at the time permanent, fundamental injuries." Biden told a similar story when addressing an audience at the Bob Carpenter Center at the University of Delaware a few days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. "It was an errant driver who stopped to drink instead of drive and hit a tractor-trailer, hit my children and my wife and killed them," Biden said, according to a transcript archived on his Senate Web site. Even before Obama asked Biden to join his campaign, political observers said the senator's gaffes could be a liability in a contest where every word will be scrutinized. Biden's first presidential campaign 20 years ago was undone by charges he plagiarized parts of a speech by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock. http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com/2009/04/bidens-lies-about-wifes-death.html That's just a quick scratch of Biden's surface (which sounds repulsive!) I imagine Pelosi will be a lot jucier |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I'm not going to go through your list point by point Mike because it isn't necessary. To say that some are correct and some aren't correct is beside the point. In order for threadbear to substantiate his position, even if I were to stipulate your list, an equal comparison of ALL statements ever made by Joe Biden is required. There is no human, or politician, that has never lied -- even Colin Powell lied (whether or not he knew it is the question), and of course George Washington's cherry tree incident. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/joe-biden/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/nancy-pelosi/ |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Wonderful post Mike! I don't know how you assembled that that fast. I am doing my own in three installmentens, one for #2 most powerful Pelosi, 3rd most powerful Joe Biden, and 4th most powerful man in the country: Harry Reid. Is it really too much to ask for #1,2, &3 to be a little less partisan and more specific on their talking points? Dems hold Limbaugh accountable for EVERYTHING he says, and he's just a grunt. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, according to your politifact, Colin didn't lie. Pelosi, om the other hand, seems to bear out Threadbare's statement pretty well. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Interesting....according to politifact, out of 208 comments by Obama, 104 of them range from half-true to pants on fire. That's a pretty sad percentage, wouldn't you say? Maybe we should just believe him half the time? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/ (One of his "true" statements was that Chicago could mathematically make the playoffs) |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Not really, because it's a selective comparison. If we're to look at Beck and Limbaugh's files we should listen to them 0% of the time!  That's the fallacy of threadbear's statement. Should we factcheck? Yes. But what should we factcheck? Should commentators and politicians alike be factchecked? Yes. Should Saturday Night Live be factchecked? Probably not. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I'm beginning to see why you tout factcheck... Promise Broken rulings on the Obameter Promise Broken No. 24: End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000 "Will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors -- saving them an average of $1,400 a year-- and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return at all." Promise Broken No. 234: Allow five days of public comment before signing bills To reduce bills rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them, Obama "will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days." Promise Broken No. 240: Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials "No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration." Promise Broken No. 505: Create a $3,000 tax credit for companies that add jobs "During 2009 and 2010, existing businesses will receive a $3,000 refundable tax credit for each additional full-time employee hired." Promise Broken No. 508: Allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts in 2008 and 2009 "Obama and Biden are calling for legislation that would allow withdrawals of 15% up to $10,000 from retirement accounts without penalty (although subject to the normal taxes). This would apply to withdrawals in 2008 (including retroactively) and 2009." Promise Broken No. 511: Recognize the Armenian genocide "Two years ago, I criticized the Secretary of State for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term 'genocide' to describe Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. … as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide." Promise Broken No. 517: Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN To achieve health care reform, "I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/ |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Now, you see? Factchecking is fun. But, why do you only post the broken promises Mike? I'm sure you'll be especially interested in this article outlining the 26 lies perpetrated by the Republicans and the health insurance industry about H.R. 3200 http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/ Or this one about Joe Wilson's outburst: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/09/joe-wilson/joe-wilson-south-carolina-said-obama-lied-he-didnt/  now isn't this fun? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Why post the broken promises, Reb? Because there shouldn't be any, should there, much less a string of them in less than a year? You want to avoid them by going somewhere else? Ok... it IS interesting. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I'm not avoiding anything Mike. I directed you to them, time and time again. What I asked you was why ONLY post the broken promises? There seem to be a lot of kept promises and promises in the works too. Why aren't you interested in them if we're talking about fact-checking and the veracity of politicians? Should politicians ever break a promise? It depends. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, Obama can make a pretty thorough case that reform doesn't apply to those here illegally. We don't find the public option argument enough to make the case that Obama "lied." We rate Wilson's statement False. Interesting. Obama makes the statement that 48 million were uninsured ( a figure that included over 9 million illegal aliens ) and, after Wilson's statement, changed it to 30 something million....but there was no connection between the two.....right. So you've gone from Obama's string of broken promises to HR3400 and Joe Wilson...Jerry Seinfeld next?  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
What I asked you was why ONLY post the broken promises? Simple...you don't key in on what someone is SUPPOSED to do...because they are supposed to do it. You don't applaud someone for not robbing a bank. You may appreciate but don't applaud your employee for doing his job but you chastize him for NOT doing it, I would assume. When a Pulitzer-winning non-partisan site lists figures that Obama only tells better than half-truths 50% of the time and lists all of his broken promises, I would not call that much of a recommendation of a president, regardless of what Joe Wilson says, or HR3200 reads, or what Limbaugh spews. It says we have a man in the Oval Office whose words or promises one cannot take at face value. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Well, it seems you have your time-line distorted Mike.... and your numbers... so I'll have to rate you a false on this statement! You see -- these are the actual numbers and the actual statement made by Obama in the speech: quote: quote: This one gets a 'pants-on-fire' Mike. I said nothing about HR3400. If Jerry says something ...... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Oh, but Mike, you're wrong all the way around here -- because what's germane to this discussion is precisely the 47 promises kept too -- and the compromises -- and the promises that are in the works. Breaking a promise isn't necessarily something a politician isn't supposed to do. For example -- would you be complaining if Obama broke his promise to roll back the Bush tax cuts or enact health care reform? Now -- do you want a score-card compiled on Bush? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Aha...I see. So, if you hire an employee who has told you 20 correct statements on his qualifications and ten lies, you'll say "Ok, 20 out of 30 is good for me." Obama got "hired" based on what he said he would do. SOme of them are stalled. On some of them there was compromise. Some were kept and some were broken. You want to shy away from the broken ones by saying, "Well, he kept some", go ahead. That's not why he was hired. People were supposed to believe in the promises he said he would keep...and he didn't. Discuss Bush? Sure...as soon as he becomes president, which would make it not pointless. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Obama: I used to say 47 million uninsured. Now, it's 30 million. By: Byron York Chief Political Correspondent 09/09/09 9:04 PM EDT In his speech tonight, the president introduced a new number in the health care debate. Remember all those statements from Democrats, including Barack Obama himself, that 47 million Americans are without health insurance? That's no longer the operative number. "There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage," the president said in tonight's speech. But on August 10, at a town hall meeting, Obama referred to the "46, 47 million people without health insurance in our country…" And on July 23, he said, "This is not just about the 47 million Americans who don't have any health insurance at all…" What's the difference? Obama appears to be choosing his words carefully. There is a difference between Americans who "cannot get coverage" and Americans who "don't have any health insurance at all." The interesting question is why Obama has chosen to downgrade the number from 47 million to 30 million. Look for Democrats to begin using the new figure in making the case for Obamacare. UPDATE: So why did Obama make the change? The first possibility is the difference between people who "don't have any health insurance" and people who "cannot get coverage." Millions of Americans who can afford health insurance choose not to have it, many of them because they are young, healthy and unlikely to need it. The second difference in Obama's phrasing is between "people without health insurance," in his old phrasing, and "American citizens" without coverage, as he said in last night's speech. Was Obama, faced with the (accurate) charge that the current Democratic health care proposals have no enforcement mechanism to prevent people in the United States illegally from receiving government-supported coverage, excluding non-citizens from his total? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
The mistake you're making Mike is that you're conflating statements that are checked for veracity (which are selected by whatever editorial criteria the St. Petersburg Times is using) and aggregating them -- as compared to the comprehensive list of 'promises' made during the campaign. Looking at statements that were selected for fact checking and trying to score them collectively is useless -- looking at each statement is the point. Do you want to apply your newly-found standard for instance to John Boehner? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/john-boehner/ Michelle Bachman? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/michele-bachmann/ Tom Coburn? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/tom-coburn/ You speak of Obama's promises kept and broken as if the clock has run out and the ball is in the air.. it ain't even past the first quarter yet buddy. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Re: your post 33 Mike: This was your statement. quote: Now, if President Obama already made the change in his speech on the 9th -- then no, Joe Wilson's uneducated outburst had nothing to do with it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Nope, it's not past the first quarter and yet the ball has already been fumbled multiple times. The Promises Broken means exactly that. The ones that need more time or could possibly be implemented in the future are in the Stalled or In The Works category. The Broken ones are exactly that....and, yes, I did read them individually. As far as Joe Wilson is concerned, you are correct and I misspoke. Obama had used the 47 million multiple times before the speech but not during the speech...I stand corrected. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Um Bob, I read "The Davinci Code". The preface clearly says his revisionist history is accurate ... though the story itself is technically fiction (I will quote it for you verbatim if I must). Hardly a concession. Just wanted to point that out. Yeah, on about the same level as Rush, Moore, and Springer. Stephen |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Mike, I am mostly in agreement with you: the issue boils down to one word: accountability and the reason people here at PIP and elsewhere have a problem with Biden/Pelosi misspeaks, is that NO-ONE in the media has held them accountable for it. (with the one possible exception of Pelosi's claim of not being present at torture meetings which is a blatant lie.) But Obama, in his brilliant Machiavellian way spirited her off that weekend to China, to talk about ..cough....cough....climate change and pollution. ------------------------------------------------- A slightly different tact here: Boy, what a timely post: the new news is that Limbaugh is being denied to partially own the St. Louis Rams because of a slew of racial comments he was allegedly said to have made. Problem is, NOBODY can find them! They were made up and spewed out on MSNBC, NBC and CNN thoroughly dashing Limbaugh's chances toward an NFL team. Personally I could care less whether he gets it or not. But he is being RACIALLY SMEARED (again the race card) to keep him from own an NFL team. Even some senators on the floor today echoed the Limbaugh-racial-talking points and none of them are popping up on Limbaugh searches. Believe me when I tell you EVERY word he's ever said has been scrut'd. He DID chew his tongue over the Donovan McNabb controversy, but it's debatable whether the statement itself is proof of racism, and more a proof of his personal idealism than racism. What's y'alls take on this Limbaugh-NFL deal? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yep,I watched O'Reilly last night, who had the head of the NFL player's union on, I think, and that point came up. This person brought up all of the "racial" comments Limbaugh was supposed to have said and O'Reilly said that his research staff could not find those comments anywhere. He wanted to know where they were. There was no answer. Nobody can seem to find where these comments were written, or said. Imagine that.... Limbaugh claims that he is going after the papers that printed them, legally, and he has deep enough pockets to do so. I hope he does. Yes, of course, the Left (the champions of the people) will care less....after all, it's LIMBAUGH) Who cares if he gets smeared or people create false statements and attribute it to them...so what? He's not really a citizen of the country with the same rights other citizens have....he's LIMBAUGH. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
My comment from another thread: I also heard on the news that the Supreme Court has ruled in cases in Texas and California that any benefit or service offered to citizens by the government, MUST also be offered to non-citizens, anyone living within our borders. So, yes, even illegals would be included in any government sponsered program, despite the denials of the politicians, who should be familiar with the court rulings in this area, wouldn't ya think? So either Joe Wilson was correct, or Obama was just mistaken, not knowing the law. In either event Factcheck was incorrect, because illegals will have to be covered if anything is provided by the government. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
References, please, Denise? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't have references, Bob. Just something I heard on Fox News on TV from Judge Napoletano. I don't even remember which program. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard for someone with the time to check into the Supreme Court rulings to verify it. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/limbaugh.asp |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Reb, you posted 'Top 10 Racist Limbaugh' quotes on a rip-off from Urban LegendsDotCom, posted at Snopes.com - 6 of the 10 being statements which are UNATTRIBUTED QUOTES (no known source). 3 of the other ones are documented at Media Matters and you know they NEVER make a mistake. Please tell me what your point is. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
I was asked to substantiate Pelosi's false statements; here is a start and I'll clean it up later if I get a chance: Pelosi getting it wrong On Abortion: In an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Pelosi said "doctors of the church" have not been able to define when life begins and that "over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy." The TRUTH: Catholic Archbishop Donald Wuerl, citing the teaching responsibility entrusted to bishops, issued a statement that read, in part: "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable." Birth at conception PELOSI ON COMPARING THE TOWN HALLERS AS POTENTIAL MURDERERS Pelosi got choked up at her weekly news conference after being asked whether she was worried about how harsh the political atmosphere had become. The speaker got emotional while discussing the rhetoric that “created a climate” that led to violence in San Francisco in the late 1970s — a seeming reference to the murders of Harvey Milk, the gay activist and member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and the city’s mayor, George Moscone, in 1978. Curb your enthusiam she urged. The TRUTH: during the recent 9-12 meeting, there were ZERO arrests made of protestors. Show me when several hundred thousand people can get together and have ZERO arrests made. Pittsburgh Left-Wing ECOActivists resulted in 20 arrests and severe damage to the city thru violence. The other obvious truth is the most of the townhallers were older, many many of them retirees. I can’t think of a more UNVIOLENT group in the US. The MSNBC picture showing arms being carried to a townhall didn’t ‘pan upwards’ to show that the man was wearing an SEIU pro-union t-shirt. He was there to CONFRONT the protestors, not support them. PELOSI LIES ABOUT THE CIA: Pelosi accuses the CIA of not telling her about torture, then proved a liar later on. To compound things, when asked by a reporter whether she was accusing the CIA of lying to her at the Sept. 4, 2002 briefing she participated in with then Rep. Porter Goss, a Florida Republican, she said "yes." She then dug the hole deeper by saying "they mislead us all the time." Later on she also admitted (but first denied until caught in her lie) that her own private staffer participated in lengthy meetings, in Pelosi’s place, that discussed in detail exactly what torture was, and what the options were. [This message has been edited by threadbear (10-16-2009 02:44 AM).] |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Threadbear, Please document the mistakes you suggest media matters has made. I generally try to avoid quoting left wing sources because that is my general bias, and I believe that using sources that generally share my bias is not a great general policy. I generally send people to right wing sources such as The Economist, whose research is generally excellent, though I may disagree with their interpretation. I can understand that you might dislike the interpretation of some the the Media Matters material, but I haven't found much to get upset about in their data collection in general, so some specifics would be appreciated. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: First -- educate me. How has Snopes ripped off this article from urbanlegends.com? Show me. quote: I believe it is self-explanatory. 6 of the 10 statements cannot be verified -- which does not necessarily mean they didn't happen, only that they are irrelevant, and unnecessary. The insidiousness of Media Matters is they take down complete transcripts of exactly what is said. How unfair! |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: You'll have to bring citations to back up declarative statements like that TB. quote: quote: This is what Pelosi said: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: Citations please. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYUmCj4yud4 quote: quote: quote: quote: |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I’m having difficulty understanding why America is more enraged over illegal aliens receiving health care benefits than they are having illegal aliens in our country. We pay the Gov to take care of the core issue. They’ve not done their job. So what makes us think we should trust any figure they compile pertaining to Illegals or the manure-like benefits we so highly value with civil unrest. Why does Joe Wilson have anything to “You Lie!” about? Invisible horses are carting away our substandard crap….so we make the crap better and that will really stop them from wanting to steal from us? No, wait, they’re invisible. That’s not possible. Nor logical. But it all sure stinks. As far as the new racial allegations against Rush? Good for him. World: Please meet His Press. It’s sure to gain him more air-time than ever….which means MORE to CHARITY next fiscal season. GO Rush! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
"But, again, our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe, but I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause. Nice Pelosi comment...where exactly was she when the thousands of Bush protesters were waving their "Kill Bush" posters in demonstrations? Her crocodile tears are as fake as she is. Just because statements cannot be validated doesn't mean they didn't happen? Oh, man...can I use that line in the future???? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, References on those "Thousands of Bush protestors waving 'Kill Bush' signs," please? Preferably from some neutral source, or, say, The Economist or The Christian Science Monitor or The Washington Post? And it really wouldn't have hurt too badly to have included them when you made the allegation, you know? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Oh nuts: I just got word today I'm going to be working from home on a 400 hour project. Great news for my bank account, but regretfully, I won't be able to spend time here like I thought. Y'all are wonderful in your pursuit of knowledge and the deeper story of the news. Keep up your quests. You have my admiration for your digging and strong sense of purpose. Never take anything at face value! Jeff |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Not allegations, Bob...facts..and they already have been displayed here. They were in a video in the thread where Jennifer was defending Rhodes Scholar Rachel...perhaps you missed it? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Here, Bob, I'll save you the trouble of looking for it.. http://politicalintegritynow.com/2009/09/still-think-socialist-is-the-new-n-word-watch-this-video-and-you-wont/ |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Dear Mike, Actually, I did miss it. But having looked at it, I didn't see "thousands of protesters" waving kill Bush signs, and if you are making reference to the same video, Mike, neither did you. I saw perhaps ten such signs, for which I feel the same disapproval I feel for seeing the same sort of signs directed at Obama. I think incitement to violence is disgusting, no matter who does it. I saw a lot of comparisons of Bush to Hitler. I believe there are grounds to make that comparison, while there are not such grounds with Obama. I understand you disagree with me. 1) Pursuit of a policy of preemptive aggression, as was Bush's policy with Iraq, was an echo of Hitler's foreign policy. It does not mark Obama's. 2) Fabrication of excuses for aggression against an enemy already chosen for attack, as was Bush's policy with Iraq and his his fabrication of such items as armed killer drones already tested by Saddam Hussein; fabrication of close relationships with Al Qaida within Iraq itself; fabrication of meetings with Al Qaida operatives in foreign countries; fabrication of connection between Iraq and the World Trade Center bombers; fabrication of data about yellow cake uranium; fabrication about data on steel tubing — the purpose of all of this being to build a convincing case for invasion of Iraq. Hitler also indulged in such fabrications, most notably the staging of phony cross border raids by Poles on German radio stations that Hitler used as justification for the invasion of Poland. Obama has done nothing like this in his foreign policy. Indeed, he has been somewhat on the slow side to push for more troop movement into new territory. This has its own problems, admittedly, but it is not part of a fascist pattern, is it? 3) Both Hitler and Bush made hash out of the Geneva conventions. Both Hitler and Bush made active use of torture in their contact with civilian populations. Bush did this notably in his early contacts in Iraq, when he had Iraqis arrested on suspicion of being connected with with Al Qaida. There was apparently no Al Qaida presence in Iraq at all for at least a few years after that point, and then only in the form of a localized resistance movement. Al Qaida and the local religious structure, it appears, were almost completely at odds; they hated each other. All those arrested by the Bush administration on suspicion of being part of Al Qaida, therefore, were innocent. Those that were tortured served to alienate the other Iraqis against us, and to qualify President Bush, like Hitler, as a war criminal. Neither one, of course, has been brought to trial. In the course of this particular war, the number of civilian casualties has been terrible. Some estimates have placed them on the low side as being at about 35,000 killed. More reputable estimates have gone to more than 20 times that number. Lancet has published some of the figures, though the figures are now old; you could check them if you wish. This doesn't actually qualify as genocide, of which hitler was guilty. It does qualify as something like mass murder. There is no evidence that Obama is guilty of any such thing at this point in his administration. 4) Both Hitler and Bush were radical right wing politicians. Obama is center-left. I think the comparisons could go on, but I believe I've made my point. To call for anybody's death is an incitement to violence, and I believe it to be wrong, whether it is Bush or Obama. I frankly have my personal doubts about Hitler as well, though I understand that such a stand makes me a very unpopular fellow indeed. I base my doubts on what I believe to be my basic inability to actually go ahead and actually damage another person, no matter how much I dislike them. I don't know if this is a basic moral position or not for me, I simply have never been able to do it. I lack the hate necessary to overcome my empathy. Anyway, the facts that you assert have not, by my examination, proven to be facts. While the video was filled with lots of images equating Bush and Hitler, lots and lots and lots of images, there were only about ten of the actual death comments. There weren't even enough to equal the number of equations with Hitler, Mike. I think it must have felt like there were "thousands"of death threat waving protesters when you saw the video, Mike, But there were only about ten repulsive signs. I haven't kept track of the ones directed at Obama. I don't watch that much tv news. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I saw a lot of comparisons of Bush to Hitler. I believe there are grounds to make that comparison, while there are not such grounds with Obama. What an incredible surprise, Bob....not. It is always different in your eyes when it is a republican on one side and a democrat on the other. You are contradicting your party's leaders, like Pelosi, Reid, and Clinton, who make the claim that NO president should have such a comparison made, that it is un-American and can promote violence. You want to believe that Bush was Hitler-esque, you are simply showing your true colors of complete bias, with little regard for what's right. So it's the "thousands" you have a problem with? That was one protest, one group of people. As you well know there were hundreds of such protests such as that during that time. Multiply the number of signs there times the number of protests and thousands might even be a low number. Your attempt at justification for such despicability is really quite appaling, sir. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Glenn Beck is a true watch dog of those in power. We need more folks like him who tell it like it is, without fear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiBDpL2dExY&feature=player_embedded |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Sir, is it now? Wow! You might consider that when you use modifiers like "always," you set yourself a standard that is very difficult to match. Such a standard requires you to show each and every instance to have followed your described path, while only requiring the other party to show a single instance of exception to prove your assertion — at the least — overblown rhetoric. Why set yourself up in such a precarious position? quote: You may remember that I acknowledged that the Republican relief package late in the last presidency was something that I may not have liked, but which was probably correct. You may also have noticed, more recently, that I approved of President Bush's senior's tax hike late in his term. It may have not been good for his re-election chances, but I thought it both courageous and necessary for the good of the country. Of course you refused to respond to the meat of that posting, so perhaps you ignored it so completely you erased it from your mind. You have there two examples, not one, of Republican things that I have approved of. Just to be nice, I will add a third — Ike Eisenhower's speech asking us to beware of the military industrial complex. quote: Why would I be concerned to be contradicting my Party's leaders, Mike? They may think that it is unfair for any president to have such a comparison to be made. I think that if the areas of comparison are clear and may be examined by everybody so that everybody can make up their own mind, why not? Republican claims that Obama is like Hitler have no basis in fact — wrong political ideology, wrong set of values. Anybody with a decent grasp of history should be reasonably clear about that. When I made my comparison, I was very specific about the basis for comparison. Would you care to debate the truth of any of the similarities I pointed out between the two men, Hitler and Bush, and the lack of similarities between Bush and Obama on the same points? That would be an interesting discussion, I believe. To make the comparison between Bush and Hitler is hardly an incitement to violence. Mr. Bush is well out of office and there is no drum beat of propaganda being directed at him encouraging people to take his life now, in the present. That pressure is off Mr. Bush, while it is very much on Mr. Obama. If you are not aware of this, then I am amazed. The pressure was on Mr. Bush while he was in office, and off Mr. Clinton in terms of threat level. It is sitting Presidents that seem to be mostly on the hot seat; to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. To make a comparison between Obama and Hitler is an incitement to violence because he is in office. This has nothing to do with party and everything to do with the expectations people place on leadership. quote: 1) How would you know what I want to believe. Have you been granted mind-reading powers? You are making an asserting that you cannot hope to prove. 2) In fact, I wanted to believe that Bush was a "compassionate conservative," as he advertised himself. I had hoped that he would be, though I thought he would not be. 3) "Complete bias" is another of those absolutes that I pointed out above. To have a bias is necessary; it comes from having a past and a point of view, though it's not a bad idea to try to compensate for it when gathering facts. A "complete bias" may be as hard to prove as "always different." You would have to prove, as I said above, that I was 100% biased in each and every instance. I must say that you have left yourself an out by not specifying what I am completely biased about. This makes the sentence fairly confusing. I suspect that you mean biased against Bush and his likeness to Hitler. Once again, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I was very specific about the basis for my comparison. I didn't compare them on the basis of love of dogs because that isn't particularly to the point (Hitler and Bush both loved dogs and, near as I can tell, so does Obama — so what?). I tried to keep the comparisons brief and to the point. Which ones do you think are false, and why? If you are unwilling to risk specifying what the right grounds of comparison should be — and you do remember, don't you, that I included Mr. Obama in the comparison as well — it seems that your objections simply don't float. You do remember that I put Obama in there as well, right? Because I don't see you objecting to that. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I think Beck is funny too Denise. That semi-evangelical tone he manages to get into his act is hilarious and some of the wacky, weird and wonderful conspiracy theories his scriptwriters come up with deserve some sort of award. I especially like the way that he takes a whole bunch of unconnected half-truths and builds a parody of a news story around them. And that fake crying - absolutely priceless. I've been sending links to all my friends since I stumbled on his video clips and we've been swapping our favourite funny moments - we don't get comedy shows like this on UK terrestrial television. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
To make a comparison between Obama and Hitler is an incitement to violence because he is in office. I see..did you claim that it was an incitement to violence when Bush was in office being compared to Hitler? I don't recall your saying anything about that. If you are going to condone comparing Bush to Adolf Hitler and give points to indicate you believe it to be true, don't ask me why I consider you biased. You prove it with your own words. The fake crying, grinch? I agree!!! Oh, wait...I thought you were talking about Pelosi |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
There you go, Mike. You really should read the entire posting before you respond. I compared both Bush and Obama. You saw only Bush. That is a definition of bias. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
You, Mike, I've spoken to people about my feelings about threats to sitting Presidents going as far back as Johnson and including Bush Junior. You shouldn't assume that my conversations with you and that my conversations in writing are the only conversations I have. I am against incitements to violence and threats in general. I am as close to a pacifist as most folks I know. I went to Friends Meetings for years and I worked with American Friends Service Committee on and off. Not that this is actually any of your business. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I compared both Bush and Obama. Yes, you did, bob. Your comparison was that Bush was similar to Hitler and Obama wasn't. That was your comparison. You, Mike, I've spoken to people about my feelings about threats to sitting Presidents going as far back as Johnson and including Bush Junior. Fine, Bob, but you certainly haven't here. You spoken of threats to Obama but I don't see anywhere where you showed any concern or disdain for threats to Bush. Maybe I missed them somewhere... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Short memory, Mike. You haven't been reading this thread again. Nor am I obligated to report my conversations with friend to you, though apparently you believe I am. You still haven't dealt with the actual comparisons because I don't believe you actually can; you seem to want to try to substitute dealing with the substance of what I'm saying with a series of personal attacks on me. You might actually try to deal with the validity of of the comparisons. Did Bush contravene the Geneva conventions? Did Bush invent excuses to invade other countries. Did Bush torture civilians, hold them without trial, and cause numbers of them to to die as a result of the policies that he and his subordinates put into practice? Did Obama, or Does he? How about Hitler? Don't tell me the comparison is terrible: Tell me that there is no factual basis for it. We agree the comparison is terrible. I say there is a factual basis and you remain fixed on directing the discussion elsewhere rather than answering the question of the factuality of the comparison. It sounds like hollow rhetoric to me. I don't mean rhetoric, which has some point to it in building a point; I mean hollow rhetoric, which functions as a distraction or diversion. The comparison is terrible because it is accurate, to my mind, and you have not offered evidence to the contrary; you have only suggested that I am a wretched person for saying it out loud. Give me clear evidence that I am wrong and I will say I am wrong; but it needs to be pretty clear and convincing, not these attacks on me personally for improper commentary about a man who has an awful lot of blood on his hands. Saying I see the blood is not improper. Saying that the way the blood got there is very much the same as the way that Hitler got blood on his hands is not improper. I did not say that Bush was genocidal. If you'll read what I said above, I excluded that. He did not try to wipe out any races or religions, nor did I claim that the comparison went that far. I made no claim that the comparison went any further than the points I raised specifically. If you wish to dispute the factual basis of those, please dispute away. Bush fit, Obama does not. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I believe I mentioned some of the stuff I spoke of the in above posting in my posting # 58. It may be that you thought avoiding actually addressing the point of my remarks would be more to your advantage. I repeat them for you again here. I have high hopes that you may actually address them this time, telling me why my comparisons were inaccurate or false rather than why you believe I was a biased or bad person for for attempting to make what I believe to be accurate observations. If you were writing to inform, I have gotten the message that you think I was being bad; I simply don't agree with you. If you wish to teach, then you'll have to work a bit harder to explain where I have my facts wrong, and you'll have to do it with a bit less spleen, which I find distracting and painful. If you have some other reason, I'd enjoy knowing what that might be. quote: |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, if you think I am seriously going to debate whether Bush is comparable to Hitler, you are really out in left field. The only thing more distasteful than hearing you do it is participating in it. One can make any comparisons one wants and make them fit. I could compare Obama to Al Capone, I suppose, to play that game. Both from Chicago is a valid start. I'm sure I could go through Capone's history and come up with a variety of things I could twist to fit some Obama actions. Does that mean I think Obama is similar to Al Capone? Does that mean I condone anyone carrying a sign that says "Obama is Al Capone!"? Nope, and anyone who compares Bush to the worst mass murderer in history does not get my participation or even my attention... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Was the Van Jones situation a conspiracy theory, Grinch? Were the revelations of ACORN employees giving out tax evasion advice a conspiracy theory? Or was the revelation that most of Obama's advisors are either communists, marxists, and/or Castro, Chavez and Mao admirerers (backed up with audio and video)? The administration has not refuted any of the specific allegations, other to have Anita Dunn say that Fox dispenses misinformation, but doesn't say exactly what that misinformation is. If Beck is wrong about any of his allegations they should prove him wrong. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Has Hitler got his own talk-radio program now? I must have missed that. Now that's a host that would change the whole concept of football as America knows it. The Nazi Football League. NO questions bout racism there... Great comparisons, Mr. Bob. What about the implications of fascism right here in our face on our own soil? Obama doesn't own the means of GM production, but he sure has his hands in the takeover of the company's leadership, structure, objectives, & security....which is not very capitalistic, is it? which is the same thing he wants to do with a health care program. On an incremental level many capitalistic values can be harmed with a single-party means to an end we won't see an end to unless we can find real health care objectives that will work for all. just my ramble on this cold Oct. morn. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Yes. Here's a Beck clip. In it he's trying to sell the inane theory that Van Jones was conspiring to turn America into a communist state. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo46e8OHd9U I've never heard such twaddle. Beck took a speech where Van Jones was making a point that the energy system needs to be reformed - that twiddling around with bits of it wasn't the answer - the whole system needs to be changed. And what did Beck the Belligerent try to turn it into? Van Jones wants to change the American political system into a Communist system. As conspiracy theories go it's pretty weak - all you have to do is listen to the speech and it's clear what Van Jones was actually saying. That you can't fix the problems inherent in the energy system without addressing the whole system - putting a solar panel on a bulldozer then using it to flatten half the rainforests of South and Central America isn't a solution. A communist plot to change America? - If you're wearing a tin foil hat it might sound convincing but in the real world? It was quite funny though, and at least he didn't cry. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “So if I understand correctly: Rush Limbaugh is so “divisive” that to get him fired leftie agitators have to invent racist soundbites to put in his mouth. But the White House communications director is so un-divisive that she can be invited along to recommend Chairman Mao as a role model for America’s young. From my unscientific survey, U.S. school students are all but entirely unaware of Mao Tse-Tung, and the few that aren’t know him mainly as a T-shirt graphic or “agrarian reformer.” What else did he do? Here, from Jonathan Fenby’s book Modern China, is the great man in a nutshell: “Mao’s responsibility for the extinction of anywhere from 40 to 70 million lives brands him as a mass killer greater than Hitler or Stalin.” Hey, that’s pretty impressive when they can’t get your big final-score death toll nailed down to closer than 30 million. Still, as President Obama’s communications director might say, he lived his dream, and so can you, although if your dream involves killing, oh, 50–80 million Chinamen, you may have your work cut out. But let’s stick with the Fenby figure: He killed 40–70 million Chinamen. Whoops, can you say “Chinamen” or is that racist? Oh, and sexist. So hard keeping up with the Sensitivity Police in this pansified political culture, isn’t it? But you can kill 40–70 million Chinamen and that’s fine and dandy: You’ll be cited as an inspiration by the White House to an audience of high-school students. You can be anything you want to be! Look at Mao: He wanted to be a mass murderer, and he lived his dream! You can too!” http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzIxZDJhNTk2ZWQwNmYzOTI3ZmIwMDcyYzhlNzVjNzc= . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't want Van Jones or any other communists like him to take over ANY industries in this country, Grinch. Obama said during the campaign to judge him by those he surrounds himself with. Well, I think we have much to be concerned about with the cast of characters surrounding him in the White House. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: As there's no evidence to suggest that anything of the sort was, or is, going to happen your claim of an imminent and clear threat doesn't hold much water. I'll file it under "unsubstantiated accusation". Right next to the insistence that we're all going to get abducted by aliens and the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Unless, of course, you have some evidence I haven't seen. Some real evidence. If that's the case, as always, I'm happy to listen to it and offer an opinion. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't want Van Jones or any other communist/marxist 'completely changing' the whole system of ANY industry, whether it's the energy system, the education system, the broadcast and internet industries, the banks, the mortgage companies, the insurance industry, the car industry, the healthcare industry, or the health insurance industry. I don't even want them twiddling around the edges of them. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Sure thing Mike. Provided that you use them in context along with the caveat that they are rendered irrelevant. Especially in this case where Limbaugh himself acknowledges he made the 'take the bone out of your nose' comment. Nobody needs make things up to prove Rush is a racist. The public record has all it needs. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Can't quarrel with the comparisons, Mike? That's Okay. Now maybe we can talk about the actual point, which was to talk about jobless recoveries in the first Bush administration and here, in the Obama administration. The idea is to see what the differences are and what the similarities are. If Obama is doing a bad job about this, I want to know as badly as you do or any of your other friends. I simply don't want to get tangled up in the extraneous name calling stuff. I believe you may have a point, but I'd like it laid out if it can be done in a reasonable fashion, one that acknowledges that this sort of jobless recovery happens no matter which party is in charge from time to time, it may be bad, it may be okay, but lets look at the thing. It shouldn't have been okay when Bush Senior had one — and, as I said, I think it was probably a good thing then, and probably laid a lot of the groundwork for the prosperity over the next eight years — and not okay when Obama has one unless we can figure out what the actual difference is. It would be nice for us to be pretty much on the same page and actually thinking about the business instead of taking entrenched Republican and Democratic party positions and sniping at each other without thinking what were saying first. So, what actually is going on with the jobless recovery stuff? How's it the same and how's it different from the Bush Senior Jobless recovery in the early '90's? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Huan Yi, Trying to defend the Human rights record of Mao would be a job that I wouldn't even try to take on. If some fool in the white house actually tried, then they're out of their cotton picking mind. I wouldn't try to defend that either. If I weren't so disgusted at the accusation, I'd try looking at your references, but the very accusation is so disheartening that I'd need to wait to even fact check it. Not with you. The accusation. Give me a day or two to get my nausea in control before I check this out. Are your really serious? Did someone in the white house actually support the human rights of Mao, or am I simply misreading you, please? Please? Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Which begs one to ask the question that, if no one needs to, why do they? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Can't quarrel with the comparisons, Mike? No, Bob, I can't quarrel with the ridiculousness of the comparisons. They are only valid in the World According to Bob, not in reality. Hey, I found out that John Dillinger was right-handed. So is Bush. Obama, on the other hand is left-handed which means there is a valid comparison between Dillinger and Bush but none between John and Obama...how about that? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Beg Pardon, Denise, but having anybody take over an industry is the Capitalist way, isn't it? At what point did capitalists start checking the politics of the money they accepted? We've been accepting communist money for years. Who do you think we've been selling the U.S. debt to, Denise? Do you think we check their RNC membership before they fork over their dough? I would suggest to you that you don't have a very clear idea of what Capitalism actually is if you think we don't let communists buy and sell industries here. We've been selling them industries in the United States since the twenties. Perhaps you've never heard the Marxist slogan, "The Capitalists will sell you the rope you use to hang them." What do you think the notions of "Free Trade" implies, Denise? You have the notion of Capitalism confused with something else, perhaps some sort of nationalism, I suspect. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
How's it the same and how's it different from the Bush Senior Jobless recovery in the early '90's? I don't know, Bob. How about you taking a look at it and let me know the similarities and differences you see? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Marxist slogan: "The Capitalists will sell you the rope you use to hang them." That's exactly why I don't trust the Marxists, Bob. Their aim is to destroy capitalism, as the above slogan so clearly states, and along with it our way of life. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Our way of life includes selling rope, Denise; and selling national debt to the chinese. That is part of Capitalism. Are you suggesting that you can tell folks to stop. Armand Hammer, for example, at Occidental Petroleum, sold oil and the like to Stalin for years, even during the cold war. You can't have missed how large a market they proved to be for our wheat? Did you think it was only Democrats that sold to the Communists? Think again. You may hate the Communists, but loads of fairly large American and Western companies in general didn't. Because that's Capitalism. You're blaming the Communists for Capitalism. That's sort of backwards. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Begging the question how? I'm not sure I understand the comment. Could you clarify it for me, please? I may agree, I may not, I simply don't understand at this point. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, that referred to LR's response in post #73. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Hate is a strong word, Bob. I disagree with them, I don't hate them. Capitalists should be wise enough to sell only enough rope to them so that it isn't used against them. Communism has never brought personal liberty to people. It only brings ever increasing government control and eventual tyranny. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, Your comment about tyranny is true about any totalitarian government, I think, Denise, of the Left or of the Right. The problem to my mind is the totalitarian nature of it, and the movement away from electoral politics, isn't it? A great deal of Europe is under Left leaning governments that do fairly well with personal freedoms and with setting their own policy. They have and cherish their own court systems and they elect their own governments freely. Sometimes the governments are more Left-leaning, sometimes for right leaning, but they almost always have very solid social protections. I'm not advocating communist governments. I am saying that people have a right to elect the governments they wish to have, and if we actually believe in the freedom we say we believe in, we have the obligation to allow, no, encourage them to do so. This has not always been the case. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike — You mean about the person who should not be named by me being a racist? It's better if I don't get into that with you, I think, at least in depth. I believe he likes to bait Liberals by playing around the edges of the subject. Beyond that, I think I don't enjoy the tactic and it doesn't help keep the conversation respectful. I don't know if you remember Eric Berne's Bestseller of many year back, Games People Play? There was one Berne called, "Let's you and Him fight" that often gets played out in political discussions, left and right, and I find it amazing how well Berne got the schematics of the thing mapped out so long ago. You hear left wing talk shows use it as well, on occasion. You may not have the time to check it out, but it's a fun comparison, seeing how predictable all of can be at times. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Bob, Read the article. Here's a video of the incident: http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?m aven_referralObject=10812408&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/ . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Next, if you look at most postings here and there over the past few days, you'll see that I actually have offered some similarities between the Jobless recovery of the early 90's and this, with most of my emphasis being of giving credit to Bush Senior for what I thought was a fairly gutsy stand on his part. You may for one reason or another not have realized that I was doing so. I also suggested that Obama was doing something of the same sort. Your focus originally was on your feeling that I was taking a swipe at two Republican Presidents and offering you a choice of which one to blame. That was not the case. Republicans themselves have their own private feelings, as I understand it, about the business. That is — again, as I understand it — that Reagan was right on, and that Bush faltered and lost the election as a result. I think that whatever caused the recession — Reagan is my thought; I understand you disagree — Bush was actually sort of heroic in doing what he needed to do to pull the country out. I think Clinton helped build on that recovery later, but that if Bush hadn't raised taxes at that point, the recession would have been much prolonged. He ended up putting money back into the economy by doing so, and increased spending a bit as well, a needed stimulus. It also turned his own party against him and cost him the election. I think it may explain why he and Clinton had the basis for a friendship later on. Anyway, you suggested that I try taking a shot at the comparison. I think that you were thinking that I was trying to lay a trap for you of some sort or something. Not my intention. I hope I offered at least the beginnings of an example of what I was talking about. Is that Okay? Sincerely, Bob Kaven Thank you, Huan Yi. Fox and National Review? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, My mistake....it referred to #74, the one as I said entered by LR. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Thanks Mike, I caught the slip and made the connection anyway. The courtesy is much appreciated anyway. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I've always found it interesting, Bob, that Bush senior was raked over the coals for his "read my lips" comment by Democrats, who love to raise taxes...shows quite a bit of Hypocracy there, in my view but, then again, all's fair in love and politics, I suppose. Would you like to see the tax differences between Bush senior and Clinton? Check them out..they are interesting, on both sides. http://www.cato.org/research/fiscal_policy/2002/factsfigs.html |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Huan Yi, I read the article and I saw the video. As for Rush Limbaugh owning an NFL team, I simply don't know. In baseball, I think there's supposed to be some sort of morals clause for ownership, and I believe one or two owners had to see because of that. Am I wrong there? I don't know if the NFL is the same way or not. Certainly Rush himself would be upset about an addict running one of the shining bastions of moral values in our great land. Even one who had manage to escape the punishment he had so justly deserved. Oh, I can just hear the great round plummy notes a-flowing out of that golden microphone now, a mighty river of righteousness. Richly deserved or not, that is pretty much how Rush Limbaugh would have presented the situation had there been a Liberal on the other end of it, as I suspect you know. Mr. Steyn's not a particularly great guy to complain, because in addition to his gig at The National Review, he is a frequent substitute for Mr. Limbaugh, and his rhetoric is no improvement over Mr. Limbaugh's or anybody who is as nasty on the Left. In this particular article, he appears to function as Mr. Limbaugh's human sock puppet. I was very upset about the allegations you made about the White House spokesperson. Having reviewed the article and the tape, I see that I need not have worried myself. The praise of Mao that I had read into the situation was not there in the least, nor was any comment about his human rights, nor was, in fact, any approval of his for of government, simply that he was an effective leader. Hate him as much as you wish, to suggest him to be ineffective would likely be a mistake. Considering that he was being used to illustrate the same point that Mother Teresa was being used to illustrate, and that the point was one worth paying attention to does not suggest that Mao was wrong, or that the point was ill chosen. The fact that the point might be illustrated from two such widely disparate points of view, both reaching the same conclusion, would actually contribute to the usefulness. The fact that Mr, Steyn might use hyperbole to ridicule the point speaks of Mr. Steyn's apparent preference for avoiding rational discussion when he can use humiliation and innuendo in an attempt to discredit the person rather than the logic instead. He doesn't quarrel with the truth of the proposition. He strives to befoul the messenger instead. Is Mao a guy that modern Americans should seek to model their human rights or civil liberties policies upon? Do you even have to think about that? Was Mao a deep and thoughtful thinker about the ways of power and the uses and abuses of authority. Did he understand motivation as well as any man in this century? Did he earn the right to have his thoughts considered on these subjects? Well, yeah. You don't have to love a guy to understand that what he has to say might be worth listening to, even if you have to work pretty hard to get it. Bluster all you will about what a wretched guy the man was. He was a wretched guy. You don't read him to find out how to be a wretched guy and kill 30 million people. He's not off the hook for them, by the way; he will never be. If there's an inferno, I suspect we have a good idea where to forward his mail. That doesn't mean he doesn't have smart things to say, too; and that we're at a disadvantage if other people know what they are and we're simply shrugging our shoulders and saying, sorry, he's too evil for me to understand him. And maybe too practical as well. How would you know, if you won't read him and discuss the ideas? Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Certainly Rush himself would be upset about an addict running one of the shining bastions of moral values in our great land. You're the best, Bob. Chubby Checker MUST have been thinking of you when he invented the twist. I know that Rush is fair game for anything you want to throw at him but perhaps you could try just a tiny bit of human understanding? I personally would feel sympathy for anyone in so much pain that they became dependant on the pain pills that were medically perscribed for them. It wouldn't matter to me what their political party was. Obviously you don't feel that compassion toward your fellow man, at least if he happens to be a conservative that doesn't like your president. Hopefully you will never be placed in that position one day. one of the shining bastions of moral values in our great land. Professional sports are the shining bastions of our land? You mean like MIchael Vick or O.J. or all of the ones who really ARE addicts? Perhaps you mean owners like Marge Schott on the baseball side or the not-so-lilly-white George Steinbrenner? Shining bastions??? Surely you jest... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Bob, Dunn said that Mao was one of her favorite philosophers. Doesn't that seem like she admires his philosophy, perhaps beyond his determination to set and realize his goals? What in the world was this woman thinking giving such a speach to high school kids? Of all the people in the world that one could choose to admire and praise, she had to pick Mao? Strange, isn't it, that none of the MSM reported on this? I guess the new White House war on Fox gave them the message not to report anything that Fox reports (not that they did much anyway)...or else the White House will be at war with them next. If it weren't for the internet Fox would be the only place you could actually hear about these things. Oh, wait, maybe that's why the administration wants unprecendented control of the internet as well. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Actually, I do feel sympathy of that sort. I was satirizing Mr. Limbaugh's views on the evils of drugs, drug dealers and drug users that he was absolutely shameless about trotting out and trumpeting during the hours I spent driving back and forth between home and the Brockton VA where I was doing my Social Work internship at the time. It was only after Mr. Limbaugh's arrest and conviction and sentencing that he shut up on the subject. If he ever ever said he'd been wrong in his relentless attacks or lack of empathy on the subject, I must have been someplace else when he said it. So no, I have plenty of empathy on the subject, I worked with alcoholics and addicts for many years as an outpatient drug and alcohol psychotherapist, though my speciality was people who had those problems plus additional more complicated psychological issues as well. And I have a fairly in depth understanding of how difficult the problem is. Unlike Mr. Limbaugh, who advocated draconian punishments for them until he himself was found out, at which point, when he could have done some good by suggesting a more sympathetic stance for fellow addicts, he simply kept him mouth shut. And yes, hopefully I too will never be placed in that position one day. And no, I don't think sports are one of the shining beacons of much of anything but cash here. I agree with each and every one of your examples. That doesn't mean that Rush Limbaugh couldn't or wouldn't work himself up on air about it or something like it if he felt he had something to gain. Perhaps he feels that he should be able to exercise his freedom of speech without arousing feelings in the people he criticizes? His comments about black civil Rights leaders and the President and Reverend Wright and ACORN and his use of characterizations of blacks gathered from sending actors pretending to be prostitutes and pimps into ACORN offices to try to get the worst of black stereotypes broadcast over the airwaves does have consequences. Do you believe that he could cooperate with these things without getting tagged as racist? Why would you believe such a naive thing? And why would you believe there would be no reaction? There's no twister involved. It's pretty much simple physics. Action and reaction. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Denise, Here's where you begin: quote: Sadly, that's where we seem to part ways. I reviewed the tape. I believe that's clearly what you heard, of course, but because that's what you heard you may have missed a lot of the significance of what she was saying. What she actually said was that Mao was one of her two favorite Political Philosophers. And that the other one was Mother Teresa. The only thing that seemed to have stuck for you was the Mao Zedong part. Because of that you missed that she spent roughly the same amount of time talking about Mother Teresa, and that the two messages were roughly equivalent. The demonic and the saintly messages were the same. Your conclusion is that because she mentioned Mao, that quote: to which the appropriate answer is, no, not unless you would care to include the same statement about Mother Teresa. The same textual evidence exists to support the same case about her, no more, no less. So, isn't it just as likely that "she admires h[er] philosophy, perhaps beyond h[er] determination to set and realize h[er] goals?" (contents inside the brackets here is mine.) You ask, "What in the world was this woman thinking giving such a speach (sic) to high school kids? " I think she was giving them a well thought out speech about the need to do your own thinking instead of taking the pre-digested thoughts of others at face value and being hemmed in by them. And that she was doing it in a way that would, if they were bright enough, be just shocking enough to catch their attention. And that, if you think about it, she was saying that Mother Teresa was just as powerful a thinker as Mao Zedong, even though her way was much softer. That in itself provides much to think about, in terms of the impact of saving lives and wasting them, doesn't it? And it's a point that could not be made by excluding either Mother Teresa or Mao Zedong from her speech. Both had to appear together for the comparison actually to work. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Do you believe that he could cooperate with these things without getting tagged as racist? No, I don't think he could wake up in the morning without being called a racist by leftists. After all, he's gone after Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpeton, Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel, Reverend "damn America" Wright, thinks Obama is leading the country down the road to ruin.....and they are all black! Since they are all fine, upstanding citizens it MUST be racial, right??!! He should know better. He should have gotten some advice from Jimmy the Greek.... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Not everybody sees this as the startling coincidence that you do, Mike. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
True enough, Bob. People sometimes see what they want to see. People who want to see a racist will do so. People who want to see conspiracy will do so. People who want to see a man trying to expose miscreants, regardless of color, will do so. It's a human trait, I'm told. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Observer effect. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. " I was very upset about the allegations you made about the White House spokesperson. Having reviewed the article and the tape, I see that I need not have worried myself. The praise of Mao that I had read into the situation was not there in the least, nor was any comment about his human rights, nor was, in fact, any approval of his for of government, simply that he was an effective leader. Hate him as much as you wish, to suggest him to be ineffective would likely be a mistake." Substitute "Hitler" in place of "Mao" Still work for you? . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear John, Do you have any particular maxims by Hitler that you would suggest might be substituted with any sort of appropriateness? Does Hitler follow or even attempt to fit into the Chinese wisdom tradition? Does Hitler try to bridge between the Chinese wisdom tradition and modernity? Does Hitler attempt to fill in the Chinese tradition of emperors seizing the throne "with bloody hands?" Did the speech offer unqualified praise of Mao, or did the speech use one element of Mao's political philosophy to make a point? Would you disagree with that point? Would you say that the use of Mother Teresa to make the point was made less effective by using Mao Zedoing to make the same point first. I thought that using Mao first made the later introduction of Mother Teresa much more powerful, and work far better than the use of somebody — say Norman Vincent Peale — to make the same sort of point. I would characterize Mao Zedong as a political Philosopher and Hitler as your basic racist lunatic, myself. Mao did have some serious things to say about the sources of power, and some interesting observations about the nature of — you should pardon the expression — the people. The things he had to say were not entirely crazy. Some were quite useful and pungent, especially about the nature of guerilla warfare and how the guerillas depend on their relationship with the population. His comment about power and gun barrels is well known. Some folks consider him to have things to say on the level of Sun Tzu. I don't put him at that level, but he's certainly close. Hitler doesn't have anything like those philosophical chops, if, really, any at all, those he's long on charisma and foam at the mouth madness. Nor does Stalin have anything like that sort of philosophical stature. Marx does, but not in pragmatic terms; not in the same terms as — as I said before — Sun Tzu. Hitler was not a particularly good General or commander. He had good Generals and commanders that worked for him and whom he listened to or didn't listen to as the whim struck him. Does this make Mao a warm and wonderful guy? I think not. And his record for mass death, as you portray it seems accurate. Nobody was drawing on his authority as a warm and wonderful guy in the speech, they were using him as an example of a good political philosopher. He was a better than good political philosopher. Your disagreement with his record of mass death doesn't diminish his stature as a political philosopher at all. I don't like his record of mass death, either. I don't know, for that matter, that Pope John Paul II's poetry is made extraordinary by his being a pope, for that matter, much as we'd like to believe that things really are that black and white. What do you think of the movement afoot to start calling Alexander the Great , now, Alexander of Macaedon because he was so much of a a conqueror and murderer? Do you find it disturbingly politically correct, or do you welcome it as an appropriate recognition of the truth of the situation? The same question could easily be posited about Mao Zedong, I believe. Though not about his stature as a Political Philosopher; nor, really about Hitler's lack of such stature. That's my best and most thoughtful take on your question at this point, John. What is your thinking in response? Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I just got around to watching the video and I think you're dancing to the wrong tune, Bob, and perhaps employing a little type of damage control. She called Mao one her favorite philosophers. Why? Because he said "find your own path". THAT is a great piece of philosophy? His "path" led to the murder of millions. Hitler? Well, he wrote Mein Kamph. I'm sure someone could find a "philosophical" message in there to rival "find your own path". The mention of Mother Theresa only accentuates her message, which appears to be "It doesn't matter what the end result may be, as long as you do it your way". She may even hum the Sinatra song in her sleep. It MUST be her anthem. I see nothing in Mao's makeup that would make him a "great philosopher" in my book. Perhaps I'm just not as enlightened as she is. There seems to be a recurring theme among Democratic heavyweights. She admires Mao as a great philosopher. Michael Moore praises the Cuban health care system under Castro. Another high-level admin official (forgot the name) recently praised Hugo Chavez and his handling of Venezuela's news outlets, which consists of shutting down all opposition or free-thinking stations. They have strange heroes, wouldn't one think? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ah, that high level administration official is Mark Lloyd, Obama's new communications czar, who is quoted as saying..“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.” Cool...an FCC czar whose focus is not freedom of speech. How refreshing..... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
And John, what do you think of Mike's survey of the collected works of Mao Zedong? Perhaps you have drawn your conclusions from the same sweeping familiarity Mike has just displayed? If so, then both of you ought to pat yourselves on the backs. Mike can read two words of German, which is probably only slightly worse than my own maybe three words of German. He might then be able to specify the new interesting and sophisticated elements of Political Philosophy in Mein Kampf. Perhaps you can. When I read it, it was a long list of complaints against the folks who won the first world war and who cramped the expansionist and nationalist ambitions of the German/ Austrian people. He trucked in extreme right wing racial politics to give things an us versus them flavor and anti-Semitic acid to give the whole thing a crusading sort of flavor. He put in in the context of his own experiences as a vet. He spoke of how he and his fellows had been betrayed at home by the left wing communists, and said that he wasn't going to allow that sort of thing to happen again. That greater Germany had a larger destiny to fulfill and he was the man to lead that Germany to power and Victory. That was theSeig that everybody was hailing at all those party rallies. Perhaps You or Mike could tell me where the Political Philosophy comes from in all of that? Or supply the Political Philosophy part that I seem to have missed. As for Mike's disposing of Mao as a Political Philosopher, I find his position curious. He manages to do so on the basis of a single sentence selected for high school students. The sentence says essentially the same thing that Mother Teresa says, who he finds basically sensible. Ergo, at minimum, he finds the philosophy acceptable and only the messenger the problem — by its very definition the exemplar of ad hominem thinking. As is, actually, pretty much the whole discussion. If a proposition is true, it will remain true no matter whose mouth it comes out of. This seems to be the crux of many discussions we have been having in these pages for a while now, now that I think on it. If it is true when Mother Teresa says it, it is true when Mao Zedong says it. It would still be true if Hitler said it, though Hitler would probably be thinking other thoughts, being preoccupied with a more limited orbit. Had he ventured outside that orbit and said these things, even the fact that Hitler said them wouldn't make them wrong. Had Hitler said two plus two equal four, it would still be true. Mao was more interested in poetry and Political Philosophy and governance. He died of natural causes, a very old man. I don't think he was a swell fellow, but his concerns included governance and Political Philosophy, and he had some smart things to say about them. Everybody in the world does not agree with everything he had to say. Hannah Arendt, a noted Political and Moral Philosopher herself and author of Eichmann in Jerusalem disagreed with him on some points. So have other Political Philosophers. Unlike Mike, Ms. Arendt seems to have actually done the correct thing and read the man she was going to disagree with in some depth before she condemned him out of hand. Then she limited her disagreement to those places where she felt she could actually make a case. Were Mike to suggest that we should bring a human rights case against Mao, I'd be with him. Should John suggest it, I'd agree as well. But this wasn't the proposal. I'd actually be interested in looking at Mao's poetry, to see if IU can find a good translation. Maybe I would find my feelings about his civil rights record would get in the way of my appreciation or evaluation of his poetry. I'd be interested to know that about myself. That part of me doesn't particularly respond to principles or rules; it sort of makes up its own rules as I go along. There are poets I don't like personally whose poetry I like very much. Rimbaud, for example, I find repellent as a person but quite fine as a poet. Who knows about Mao? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, In reference to your post 105 above, whose quotes would those be, and from where and when? I'd like to have a look at the context. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
http://www.ask.com/web?l=dis&o=13992&qsrc=2873&q=communications%20czar Pick either of the first two, Bob...and there are others. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Bob, The quotes are from a book called "Prologue to a Farce - Communication and Democracy in America". Page 20 to be precise. But if you're going to read it I'd start at the very beginning - apart from it being a very good place to start (Doh a Deer and all that) - it also helps to understand the context. http://books.google.com/books?id=SbmxyHXadQ4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Mike can read two words of German Ah, Bob, you just can't keep making the same wrong assumptions, can you? I think I've mentioned here more than once that I lived three years in Germany. I've been through checkpoint Charlie and visited Hitler's bunkers in Garmisch and Berchesgarten and have enjoyed the pleasures of Munich and the Black forest....and even managed to pick up more than two words of German. He manages to do so on the basis of a single sentence selected for high school students. No, Bob, I did so on the single sentence that Dunn used in her speech. If it is true when Mother Teresa says it, it is true when Mao Zedong says it. It would still be true if Hitler said it, though Hitler would probably be thinking other thoughts, being preoccupied with a more limited orbit. ...and you don't think Mao was thinking other throughts than Mother Teresa? Of course the sentence is true, no matter who says it. Is that enough for you to call him one of your favorite philosophers? Mao was more interested in poetry and Political Philosophy and governance. Ah, yes, Mao the poetry lover and philosopher. The mass murdering of hundreds of thousands was just to fill time when no good poetry books could be found, I suppose. He died of the same natural causes Capone died of. I'd actually be interested in looking at Mao's poetry, to see if IU can find a good translation. Maybe I would find my feelings about his civil rights record would get in the way of my appreciation or evaluation of his poetry. I'd be interested to know that about myself. Good idea, Bob. I also suggest that you purchase some of the paintings of...Dahlmer, I think it was..and see fi they appeal to you. He had a lot of fans, I hear....excludingt he family member of the people he ate, of course. Hitler was a magnificent orator. One only has to look at videos of him giving his feiry speeches to hundreds of thousands of wildly cheering Germans. Should that make him one of my "favorite" orators? Mao became a favorite philosopher of Dunn because he said "find your own path". Certainly there must have been other things he said that impressed her but, to use that phrase in her speech, it must have really been high on her list. I would suggest to her that she read Ziggy or perhaps Maxine. She could find equal philosophical gems. As I said, it's interesting how MAO, Castro, Chavez and the like make it on the Democratic most-admired lists. Why is that, do you suppose? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Mike, Actually Mao never said "find your own path", that's clear if you listen to the video, the actual quote was: You fight your war and I'll fight mine. As political philosophical quotes go it's a bit of a gem - regardless of the source. In my opinion it's superior or at least on a par with mother Teresa's offering: Go find your own Calcutta Dunn tried to equate both of them to "find your own path" which is a bit of a stretch, it sort of had the essence of each but was too far removed to have any real connection. "Fight for what you believe" Might have been closer. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You fight your war and I'll fight mine is a philosophical gem?? I learn so much from these discussions... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I'm glad you agree Mike. Most people would miss the dual meaning of Mao's quote when applied to his own situation - faced with supposedly insurmountable odds that required specific tactics - and the implication that he was compelled to try precisely because it was his war. Mother T's was similar but from a different angle, she was saying don't just donate to any charity out of some misplaced belief that you have a moral obligation - go and find your own cause - one you really believe in. Both were saying that a good cause was one you passionately believed in and that passion is the engine of commitment. I prefer Mao's quote, but only by a small margin. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “Midway through Bush’s second term, press secretary Tony Snow goes along to Chester A. Arthur High School to give a graduation speech. “I know it looks tough right now. You’re young, you’re full of zip, but the odds seem hopeless. Let me tell you about another young man facing tough choices 80 years ago. It’s last orders at the Munich beer garden — gee, your principal won’t thank me for mentioning that — and all the natural blonds are saying, ‘But Adolf, see reason. The Weimar Republic’s here to stay, and besides the international Jewry control everything.’ And young Adolf Hitler puts down his foaming stein and stands on the table and sings a medley of ‘I Gotta Be Me,’ ‘(Learning to Love Yourself Is) The Greatest Love of All,’ and ‘The Sun’ll Come Out Tomorrow.’” And by the end of that night there wasn’t a Jewish greengrocer’s anywhere in town with glass in its windows. Don’t play by the other side’s rules; make your own kind of music. And always remember: You’ve gotta have a dream, if you don’t have a dream, how you gonna have a dream come true?” Anyone think he’d still have a job?” http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzIxZDJhNTk2ZWQwNmYzOTI3ZmIwMDcyYzhlNzVjNzc=&w=MQ == My money says no. By the way, “Mein Kampf”, in English: “My Struggle” which isn’t that far from: “My War” . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actuallyt I remember a cartoon strip where Snoopy was lying on top of his dog house thinking "It doesn't matter what you believe in as long as you're sincere". He may have outdone Mao! |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The English form of kampf is camp. In Old English camp also meant "war, struggle, etc". Both of them go back to Latin campus "field", in the sense of a field used for armies and battle. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
McCain Quotes Mao http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYJ15vbo15w&feature=player_embedded Gingrich Quotes Mao http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910160010 W tells Rove to read Mao http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910150036 Rush reminds us that he's not only a racist but a blatant sexist too: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/limbaugh-to-cnn-rporter-g_n_326948.html quote: |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Hitler gets a lot of airplay for somebody the woman never mentioned. Apparently, the right wing can't tell the difference between Mother Teresa and the late unlamented Dictator of Germany. Mo, wait, it was between the Left wing guy and the right wing guy they can't tell apart. So they're confusing their own political ideology with that of Mao Zedong and they seem upset about it when Ms. Dunn never mentioned the nazis at all. Nor, actually, did she recommend Catholicism, which I would suspect some folks might possibly be upset about. But, of course, because she didn't mention it, it wasn't really all that much of a problem. Of course, she didn't mention Hitler either, but the author of the National Review article, who is a frequent stand in for Rush Limbaugh and who uses Mr. Limbaugh's rhetorical style in the article, feels entirely justified to bringing the subject up. Why not, it's irrelevant, and it can serve to smear somebody, can't it? It doesn't matter who says the truth, guys. I take that back. Apparently, it matters to you, and you seem willing to go down to the wire on the subject for some entirely bizarre reason. No matter who says it, I may want to see the sources and the data, but if the observation is true, there you are. quote: Thank you. quote: Absolutely not. Nor did Ms. Dunn suggest that this was the basis for her affinity for the man's political philosophy. That was your assertion and your assertion alone. Then you proceeded to smear her as though your assertion were the truth. You offered no proof of your assertion. In fact the comment quoted is not one of Mao's better known ones; not one that I at least have heard quoted before, though I don't pretend to know Mao's work well at all. Perhaps you would like us to throw away the golden rule because it shows up in Peanuts at some point, and that means that the Golden Rule and the study of ethics should be replaced by the study of comic books, as you so profoundly suggested about Mao's Political Philosophy after hearing a single quotation and getting it wrong on repetition. Perhaps you'd like us to do the same with the Tao te Ching and the Torah and the New Testament as well, and make do with the comics Illustrated versions. quote: I probably didn't make myself clear. Mao Zedong was not famous as a reader of poetry, Mike. He had a national reputation as a poet before he became a revolutionary, as I understand it. He has always had that reputation, and I wanted to see for myself what the quality of his poetry was. I think that political poetry is almost impossible to write well. It almost always has no staying power and is drivel. The American protest Poetry of the Sixties has not held up well at all, in my opinion. For the most part it's pretty much bombastic garbage with at least one exception, which is a poem that is only a protest poem in part — Galway Kinnell's The Book of Nightmares. Other than that, I'd have to go back to Yeats. So I really want to check Mao out because I want to see the quality of what he's written. Bertrand de Born, the Provencal poet, was a thoroughgoing jerk and nasty guy, but his poetry is occasionally good, at least in the translations that I've seen. Jeffery Dahlmer was simply one very sick man. I feel very sorry for his victims and on some level I feel sad for the torment that drove him. As to what killed Mao Zedong, I don't know, but I seriously doubt it was syphilis. It was quite curable with antibiotics that were easily available by the time he took power, and even sulfa drugs were useful. A high fever would cure it. I'd be willing to consider the possibility, but it sounds more like a slander of convenience to me. What are your sources on this one? quote: Wile I was growing up, I had a babysitter who was quite literally Transylvanian and spoke eight languages (she said). She lied a lot. She did spend a lot of time in Germany during the thirties, and she was still enthralled with Hitler. She used to talk to me how all the stories about him really couldn't be true and that he made the trains run on time, and what a warm and fascinating man he was and how right you felt when you listened to him. He was one of her favorite orators and always was until she died in about 1970. She still hoped he was alive down there someplace in South America. He got where he got on his Charisma. Mao had charisma, too, I hear. But he also had a brain. If you pretend Mao didn't have a brain and have interesting and useful ideas, how are you going to know what they are when something like them comes down the pike again? At this point, if I'm to take the Republican rhetoric seriously, Republicans have lost the ability to distinguish Fascism from Communism. On the basis of one idea they have thrown out an entire system of thinking they are unacquainted with, and they can only offer ad hominem excuses for why they have done so. quote: I think that folks have more mixed reactions than you credit them for, Mike. I don't like a lot of the results of Mao's government style, and I share some of your dislike for his draconian methods. I'm not stupid or unobservant. I can see lots of flaws with China and with Communism in general; if you believe otherwise, you haven't been looking or listening to me over the years and that would be a pity. I think Mao is important to read because he has important things to say. I don't agree with all of them. I read you, don't I? I think you have important things to say as well, and you know that I disagree with you as well. The conditions that Mao faced were more extreme than the conditions you or I ever had to face, and his solutions were different than I would have come up with for my situation. But then I wasn't facing a three to four thousand year old entrenched power structure dead set on maintaining things the way they'd always been, and Mao did. I think that's a start on a good basic answer. I think you might try speculating what would have happened if Mao had lost and either the Japanese had won or the Greens had won, and imagine what sort of situation would have emerged from that. I don't think people allow themselves to speculate about those alternatives. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts at any rate. Sincerely, Bob Kaven [This message has been edited by Bob K (10-22-2009 03:15 AM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfaiLki3WEg&feature=player_embedded |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. . “But then I wasn't facing a three to four thousand year old entrenched power structure dead set on maintaining things the way they'd always been, and Mao did.” Which seems a way of rationalizing mass murder.. . But that may be a sign of my fault: “To read too many books is harmful. “ Mao Zedong . |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Doesn't anyone else see the irony in trying to defend Mao in a thread about Limbaugh and Beck? Being right occasionally isn't enough to gain my trust. Even being right a lot won't excuse a couple of really horrible wrongs. The scale doesn't work that way, not for me. I'm sure Mao and Limbaugh have both been right about a couple of things. Life, however, is too short to invest my time finding and verifying those rare nuggets of worth. I, for one, can spend my time more fruitfully. Besides, I find that ignoring certain people carries fewer side effects than blood pressure medication. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Besides, I find that ignoring certain people carries fewer side effects than blood pressure medication. True enough, Ron. Maybe someone should pass along that little nugget of wisdom to Obama. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
From a speech by Ron Bloom, manufacturing czar.. We kind of agree with Mao that political "power comes largely from the barrel of a gun." Seems quoting Mao is quite popular among democrats. Perhaps they should change their name to demaocrats! |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I'm curious, Mike. Is quoting Mao worse than quoting someone quoting Mao? FWIW, that Maotation is one with which I would have to agree. Sadly and reluctantly, but nonetheless. What it leaves unsaid is that there is always going to be someone, somewhere, some time, with a bigger gun. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I'm curious, Mike. Is quoting Mao worse than quoting someone quoting Mao? Nope, unless quoting Rush is worse than quoting someone quoting Rush (like the White House, for example) |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Mao was talking about revolutions, guerrilla warfare and power. Ron, your comment is interesting, but probably practical only in terms of symmetrical warfare — two bodies of approximately identical size and resource meeting as equals. This is pretty much land warfare as it evolved in the west. It has some apparent exceptions, for example, the three hundred at Thermopalae, but the asymmetry was more apparent than actual. The engagement was due to a local disparity in forces, and the Greeks overall held superiority in the vital naval power. Asymmetrical warfare forces the larger power to bankrupt the itself in the conflict against the weaker power. Hence, the larger guns are not particularly an issue in these sorts of conflicts, and the larger power must tie down disproportionately large and well armed forces to contain small forces. Using the model from Mao Zedong, Castro tied down the Cuban government and its army and police forces using at times as few as 50 men total. Some would say many fewer at times. The model should not be only useful to Democrats, and, in fact is not. That Mike suggests it is is an insult to the flexibility of the thinking of the United States Army, who has used the basic Maoist principles of insurgency and counter-insurgency in forming the Green Berets and other special forces groups. Unlike Mike, these folks are willing to recognize innovative and useful thinking where they see it, and to adapt it to the defense of our country. And as John should recognize, the marine raiders in the second world war picked up some of these same principles. In Viet Nam, the Marine Recon people used many of the same principles to good effect. Had we not been able to adapt some of these principles of insurgency and counterinsurgency — which formally found their way into the army under Kennedy, but had been there already for quite a while — we would not have made alliances with the Hmong, for example. Nor would we have been able to put together the alliances in Afghanistan that allowed us to do the initial effective work there after 9/11. All of this was counterinsurgency work, all of it based on some of these same principles of fitting in with the people, living with the people, trying to understand the needs of the people and channel their needs and wants, that Mao outlined. This is political Philosophy. It's all fairly pragmatic and useful stuff. It's even useful military philosophy, which is why they even teach some of it at that noted bastion of communist values, West Point. Insurgency-counterinsurgency. They even teach Sun-Tzu, who covers some of the same ground, because he's freaking smart as well. Used to be, they even covered some of this stuff in business schools. I don't know if they still do or not, but there's no reason why they shouldn't. It's practical management theory. Find out what your market wants. Find out what your market is getting now and what they feel ripped off by from their current supplier. Identify with your current market and find a way of giving your market what it wants in a more satisfying way, cheaper, and in a way that builds some brand loyalty. Watch your competition get more and more demanding in an effort to demand their market share back, as though it was their by right. Use American Cars as an example versus Japanese cars as an example of a marketing strategy following these lines successfully for the Japanese. Look at our initial work in Afghanistan as our successful work of the same marketing strategy on the other. It can work both ways. Now look at what happens when the marketing strategy isn't followed through in Afghanistan today, and when you give the other side a chance to turn it around on you. Insurgency, counterinsurgency. Simply because Mao gave some of the most coherent explanations of the process, doesn't mean that he's wrong or that he's as hysterical as Glenn Beck or as opportunistic as Rush Limbaugh. Mao was a monster and a genius, and I mean both. No matter how many times I acknowledge the reality of his being a monster and condemn him for it, I seem to have a terrible time getting any understanding of the flip side of the man's character. I can't really fault anybody for this, I guess, but it is something you run across in history from time to time. An Alexander, a Julius Caesar, a Ghengis Khan, a Napoleon. He is distinguished from a Limbaugh or a Beck because a Limbaugh or a Beck at his most outsized is hick-up in a hurricane, his good and his evil both, I think; while a Mao is a hurricane itself. Not to attempt to understand a Limbaugh or a Beck is an irritation; not to understand a Mao Zedong may well lead you to misread the age. Something that, in this particular era, may not matter all that much at all. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Your suggestion may amaont to Maofeasence, Mao-over. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
That Mike suggests it is is an insult to the flexibility of the thinking of the United States Army, who has used the basic Maoist principles of insurgency and counter-insurgency in forming the Green Berets and other special forces groups. You never cease to amaze, Bob. You portend to know how I feel, what I suggest and my favorite color, I suppose, not to mention my choice of brie or mozarella...all equally inaccurate. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "Besides, I find that ignoring certain people carries fewer side effects than blood pressure medication." Hint taken . . . . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Limbaugh and Beck are not political leaders or tyrants, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, Ahmidinajhad, wielding life and death power over people. Where do these tyrants come from, these abusers of power, these mass murderers, these butchers? Are they mentally ill? Possessed of or by evil? What do they ultimately gain by destroying their own people and countries? What is the point? Power? What good does it do them when they are in the grave? I'll never understand it. And how could any sane, freedom loving person admire them? John, you do my blood pressure just fine. I appreciate your contributions. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Btw, for one of the few times in recent memory I applaud mainstream news. Obama tried to pull a slick one by banning FOX from the 5 news agencies invited to interview one of czars today, the same 5 that have been invited since 1997. The other four agencies declined to participate if FOX was excluded and the White House had to back down and invite them. That had to be a real blow to Obama and it would do him well to rethink his childish war on FOX. He has a better chance defeating the Taliban. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The White House’s extraordinary assault on the Fox News Channel will end in tears – and not for Rupert Murdoch, Fox’s owner. The Obama administration has embarked on a high-risk strategy of shooting the messenger, in effect blaming its plummeting poll ratings on alleged political bias at the number one 24-hour cable news network. As Anita Dunn, the Mao-quoting White House communications director put it in an interview with The New York Times: “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent. As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.” As Dunn’s statement illustrates, this is an overtly political campaign – and one that is doomed to failure, as it will ensure that even more Americans end up tuning in to Fox shows. The United States is a nation built around the principles of free speech, limited government, and free enterprise, and it is highly unusual for a US administration to launch an authoritarian vendetta against an individual news station. It smacks of mean-spiritedness as well as desperation, and is an approach that is already backfiring, with Fox’s ratings receiving an added boost from the huge publicity. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100014310/why-the-white-house-will-lose-its-war-against-fox-news/ |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Excluding Fox is silly. They are a news organization, much as I dislike their politics and their methods, and they have a right to report and present the news in the disturbing and to me distasteful way that they do. For The White House to pretend that Fox is even making the least pretense of neutrality and is trying to do anything but put forward an opposition agenda, on the other hand, is pretty silly as well. Actually, it would be close to politically suicidal. The problem is that the Democrats really don't understand how to be appropriately cutting and nasty in return, and are somewhat big fat stupid dumb targets for the Fox network because they keep trying to behave in some sort of gentlemanly fashion. They need to learn and practice the sort of cut and parry that's been the mainstay of the English House of Commons for centuries, enjoy it, develop a sincerely vicious pro-Liberal Press that is fully as rude as Fox but on the other side of the fence, and then simply get on with the business of governance. We need less restraint in the Freedom of Speech, not more of it. We need several Gore Vidal types and types more down and dirty to reply to those Republicans of the same inclination. Also more facts, which Republicans have always had trouble with, and apparently gave up on several generations ago. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Democrats really don't understand how to be appropriately cutting and nasty in return LOL! Apparently. Bob, you don't watch much of Oberman, Rachel or Randi Rhodes. A quick google search could turn up a wealth of cutting and nastiness on their part. Problem is that not a whole lot of others do, either, and it doesn't fly that well. It's always better to provide something factual along with the rants, which they have a problem doing. Don't think this thin-skin characteristic trait of Obama's is going unnoticed by other world leaders. Seeing how an opposing tv station can get him to lose his cool so badly he has to go after them personally is not a good thing for him. For a country known for personal rights and freedom of speech, watching him trying to ostracize a news station due to their criticism of him (along with the Chamber of Congress and others he has decided to personally challenge by name) hurts the reputation of him as a leader and also the country as a defender of personal freedoms. His low boiling point is something for them to use one day. Never good for a president to show that he can be shaken, not stirred. Perhaps he should watch a rerun of Inherit the Wind... |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
How fast has Glenn Beck's popularity grown? He had 400,000 viewers when he was on CNN. After switching to FOX Cable News, his viewership has grown to around 4.5-5 million viewers a night, and that is at 5 PM, traditionally a 'dead' period in news since people aren't home yet. His show is repeated at 2 AM and doesn't even get the 10 or 11PM or 12, or 1am rerun spot and he still gets another couple of million viewers then. O'Reilly, the #1 Cable News spot for the past 8 years, has 5.5-6 million viewers nightly. Keith Olbermann has around 650,000 viewers a night. Beck's ratings are nearly 8 times his. Beck has grown a net of 4 million viwers since going to FOX in Feb, and at this rate of growth, he will have 12 million viewers by his '1 year point' at FOX. You are witnessing a modern news phenomenon. Candle in the wind? maybe (I'll try to sneak in here from time to time on work breaks.) |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “Defend Fox from the likes of Anita Dunn? She’s been attacked for extolling Mao’s political philosophy in a speech at a high-school graduation. But the critics miss the surpassing stupidity of her larger point: She was invoking Mao as support and authority for her impassioned plea for individuality and trusting one’s own choices. Mao as champion of individuality? Mao, the greatest imposer of mass uniformity in modern history, creator of a slave society of a near-billion worker bees wearing Mao suits and waving the Little Red Book? The White House communications director cannot be trusted to address high schoolers without uttering inanities. She and her cohorts are now to instruct the country on truth and objectivity?” http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTNhZGQxYzVmMjU4NjY3NTIwMWFjMDQ0ZjJlODM0MzA= . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Huan Yi, If I wanted a subscription to The National Review, I would have bought a subscription to The National Review. They are more or less useless to me except as source of unformation (a neologism, not a spelling error) unless you supply context and background from your own thinking, especially if they are opinion. The National Review is long on opinion, but it is your opinion that matters to me here; not theirs. If you don't care enough to formulate your own thoughts on a matter, it's pretty much a waste of my time to be offered somebody else's as a weak-tea substitute. If you want to add them in addition, I will read them happily for an extra understanding of what you think. Otherwise, each of us could simply supply favorite excerpts from commentators of the day and plug them in here without bothering to bother ourselves with actually formulating our own thoughts or reading anybody else's. We could even write a program — those of us who are computer literate enough to do so, which certainly excludes me — and let our computers do it for us, and avoid the actual thinking process entirely. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, John, what's wrong with you??? At least gives us some clips from the Huffington Post, which seems to be a favorite among some of our more illustrious liberals....it's unbiased, so I'm told |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Nah, these guys aren't even close. They have this problem with making too much sense and sticking close to the facts, which I believe we need, by the way, but they aren't aggressive the way the English Press can get with its questions and its follow-ups. They may look aggressive to you, but they're quite polite. Obermann is a man with a bit of an edge to him, but both he and Maddow stay pretty much within the limits of the truth, near as I can see, and so does Randi Rhodes. I do dearly love your reaction to that woman, I must confess it. If everything you said about her was true, about her inability to find an audience, and her lack of talent, you'd think she'd be off the air by now, wouldn't you? And you'd think Rachel Maddow would have no audience at all instead of having a radio show, where she started and now a tv show as well that's also on multiple times a day. As for Freedom of speech and Presidents of the United States having thin skins and their administrations not going after networks and broadcasters, I guess you'd be thinking that certain broadcasters from Texas investigating certain stories about certain Presidents in the Air National Guard wouldn't fit in the same category. And that their pressure on a certain CBS network that I shouldn't mention probably wouldn't qualify as undue pressure and that it wouldn't be construed as more severe pressure than this because of course, the administration in power at that time wasn't Democratic. As I recall at that time the pressure was entirely justifiable, even though it brought the investigation to what seemed to me to be a premature close, and it has never been re-opened. Which is a pity. There has certainly been more than enough time to operate a lot of document shredders since, and not simply on the reputations of previously well thought of reporters. I suspect that a case of Republican amnesia has set in about these events, and that to the minds of many Republicans, The Fox Network has been perfectly fair and balanced and does not merit attention being drawn to the fact that it is the voice of the Opposition in this country. It would be foolish for the administration not to recognize this. It would be foolish as well to attempt to cut Fox News from access to administration news sources, though, I should remind you, that this was one of the tactics that the Republican White House did use, at times trying to cut Helen Thomas from her privileged status as senior White House reporter, and packing the press pool with some very strange "reporters" indeed who got access that precluded access for some more experienced and tougher minded reporters. Some of my Republican friends may have forgotten these tactics of press management as well. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Hope you're feeling better Mike. quote: I would, in this case, make the same objection, Mike, if The Huffington Post was being used instead of making a comment of one's own and using the quote as support or as a springboard, if it were done as a more or less regular practice. If you feel the need for some clips from the Huffington Post, you might consider subscribing. I don't myself. But I hadn't expected to see this uncharacteristic fascination in you, Mike. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
They may look aggressive to you, but they're quite polite. Obermann is a man with a bit of an edge to him, but both he and Maddow stay pretty much within the limits of the truth, near as I can see, and so does Randi Rhodes. Why does your assessment of them not surprise me? Anyone who would call Randi Rhodes polite has lost all sense of reality...or is so completely biased they can't see it any other way. And you'd think Rachel Maddow would have no audience at all instead of having a radio show, where she started and now a tv show as well that's also on multiple times a day. Ozzie Ozbourne has a tv show....so did Rocky the Flying Squirrel. As far as her having an audience, compared to O'reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity or Beck, she basically doesn't. As far as the rest of your comment, it is simply reverting to the finger pointing tactic used so frequently here to avoid talking about the current situation. It is just a defensive move designed to dodge what is happening now. If you feel Obama is right in this Chicago-style "bring it on, jerkwad" approach to a news organization., just say so. I you have issues about any alleged msitreatment about Helen Thomas, start a thread on it. If you have issues about mistreatment of reporters with reference to Bush activities in the National Guard, start a thread on it. Otherwise, perhaps you could stick to the current situation....one would hope. thanks for the health concern. I hope YOU feel better. After the way you jumped on John without provocation, I'm thinking you may be feeling edgier than I am |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Sorry about the edgy feeling. quote: Very sorry about the edgy feeling. quote: But Rachel Maddow and Rocky the Flying Squirrel are witty, and have redeeming social value and are on the side of goodness and light. And Ozzie Osborne — I think — only pretends to be a minion of Satan. quote: You may have missed the part where I said that I didn't think picking on Fox was a good idea, and that I thought that the Administration shouldn't do it. Don't let my agreement get in the way, though. quote: Actually, saying The Administration, and hence the President himself by extension, was wrong in this matter would more or less sidestep the need for any defense, wouldn't it? The administration was wrong. Besides, I think you must be exaggerating at least a little. I can't imagine any President of The United States actually being out of whack enough to say "Bring it One!" in public, no matter what he might think in private. quote: Your comments about this president and this White House and the implication that this is a unique event more or less precludes that, Mike. You have broadened out the range of things yourself, and I am responding to your difficulty in staying focused on this particular issue. Had you not wished to go off on the unique evils and faults of President Obama, nothing would have needed to be said, would it? quote: Thank you for the concern. My physician has had to cut my meds because Blue Cross of California has seen fit to say that the dose I've been taking for several years is not the one that it thinks is appropriate. This has had unpleasant consequences that I would rather not go into here, but I would say that, no, I am not feeling better at all; I am feeling decidedly worse. Thank you for asking, though. I may in fact be feeling edgier than you are. Whether that is to the good or not, I have no idea in the long run. My concern is for the level of pain that you have to deal with. I do not like to see friends in pain. I do not like to see anybody in pains, but people I like, I really don't like to see in pain. This sometimes makes people uncomfortable, my father in law used to get uncomfortable with this sometimes. It is my flaw, and I acknowledge it. As to jumping on John without provocation, I am sorry you see it that way. I like what John has to say for himself. I respect his thoughts about a number of subjects, though don't always agree with him. His notions about honor have always been particularly moving to me, as are his notions about duty and country — again, I don't always agree, but he puts himself very very well. His reading is almost always well chosen, especially his reading, recently on Stalin, I thought was good, and I think we share an interest on military history, strategy and tactics. When I don't hear his thoughts, and hear instead the thoughts of some yahoo who, to my mind, isn't fit to shine John's shoes, I get upset. As I said, if I wanted a subscription to The National Review, I'd get one, the same way as I'd get a subscription to the Huffington Post, if I wanted one. Much as it may upset you to hear it, I actually do hope you're feeling well. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. "some yahoo" Charles Krauthammer? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Here'ssome proof about the "politeness" of Randi Rhades. I had to edit a bit to post it..feel freeto read the unedited portion if you wish. Air America Host Randi Rhodes Suspended For Calling Hillary A "Big (act of performing sex) (promiscuous person)" Air America host Randi Rhodes called both Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton "promiscuous persons)" in a recent appearance, seen below. Rhodes, who hosts a weekday radio show on Air America, said to the cheering crowd, "What a (promiscuous person) Geraldine Ferraro is! She's such a (act of performing sex) (promiscuous person)!" She then proceeded to say, "Hillary is a big (act of performing sex) (promiscuous person), too" to a mixed audience reaction. "You know why she's a big (act of performing sex) (promiscuous person)? Because her deal is always, 'Read the fine print, (rectum)!'" Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/03/air-america-host-randi-rh_n_94863.html You must be very proud of having such a polite and decent person on your side.. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
One day after Air America libtalker Randi Rhodes was suspended for calling Hillary Clinton a "big (see above)", her on-air fate remains uncertain. Meanwhile, the left side of the Internet has been busy debating her actions and potential punishment. Could this be the end of the Rhodes? Officially, the network's behavior has been peculiar, with a vague statement serving as its only public communication on the matter. And while it has allowed written comments on that press release, other Air America hosts have steered clear of it. That has especially been the case for Randi's fill-in host, Sam Seder, who deflected calls on the subject yesterday. Rachel Maddow also avoided it entirely, a real mistake given red hot levels of listener interest. Lefty hosts still don't know a great topic even when it is right in front of them. http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2008/04/liberals-debate-fate-of-randi-rhodes.html Well, we know what happened to her now, don't we? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Just how far are lefty pundits willing to go to smear Sarah Palin? On behalf of the "progressive" movement, libtalker Randi Rhodes seems determined to sink to new depths of moral depravity, with the limits of imagination as her only impediment. Less than a week after her wildly dishonest claim that John McCain was "well-treated" during his wartime imprisonment in Vietnam, Rhodes is at it again, this time making a strong inference that Palin likes to sleep with teenage boys. It's further evidence of a widespread smear campaign that involves lefty bloggers, libtalkers and the mainstream news media. With this gang, the ends apparently justify the means. That there isn't a shred of evidence to back up any of their claims is irrelevant: this is full-scale character assassination. http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2008/09/libtalker-sarah-palin-has-unhealthy.html Democrats don't know how to be nasty and cutting, Bob? Really?? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
gentlemen,.... really? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Randi Rhodes calls Hillary voters "white trash" by ryeland, Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:21:41 PM EST I hope Nova M Radio is happy with their new talk show host, the Left's own Rush Limbaugh. Randi Rhodes is a disgrace and an embarrassment to Democrats, and I can't imagine why any organization (political campaign or business) would want to be associated with her hate-filled rhetoric. In the first five minutes of her show today, Randi let this one go: "The Clinton campaign describes Hillary's voters as older, white, and undereducated. Or as we called them in my neighborhood: white trash." Randi followed this, without a hint of irony or self-awareness, with a screed about how Hillary is an elitist (in part, because she loaned her campaign $5 million). Tell us more about elitism, Randi. How do "white trash" fit into your analysis? I don't know if Randi Rhodes is helping or hurting Barack Obama, but I do know that she's hurting the Democratic Party with this kind of divisive, classist language. White trash? That's how she chooses to describe the majority of Democrats who voted in this year's primaries? I wouldn't be surprised if Randi finds herself back on the unemployment line soon. http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/22/232141/667 Yep, she's a real winner, Bob. That's why she got kicked out of Florida... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Dobbs blasts Olbermann: 'punk, liar, psycho, hallucinating' politico ^ Posted on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 11:20:03 PM by maccaca Last night, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann not only named CNN's Lou Dobbs the "worst person in the world" but called him a "soft-focus, birther-embracing former star, a man who during the week makes millions off bashing immigrants, especially Hispanics, even though his wife and kids are Hispanic." Olbermann followed up with some questions: "What do you want, Lou? To come take a swing at me? That Lou Dobbs? Meds? Have you had your tranquilizer dart yet today, Lou?" Well, Dobbs didn't like that, claiming on his radio show today that Olbermann is "hallucinating" and "making up stories." And Dobbs rattled up a few choice descriptions for the MSNBC host: "punk," "liar," "psycho" and "fool." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2309329/posts More politeness! Problem is, Bob, what you see is a big lack of class... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Rachel Maddow On "Daily Show": "Insulted," "Embarrassed" By Bush, MSNBC Compared To Munsters Huffington Post | Danny Shea | January 8, 2009 07:53 AM Rachel Maddow appeared on "The Daily Show" Wednesday night, where she and Jon Stewart discussed the MSNBC family, President-Elect Obama's policy knowledge, and George Bush's Blair House snub of the incoming First Family. Stewart opened the interview by telling Maddow hers is "a lovely voice to have out there on the air," and then he compared MSNBC anchors to the Munster family. "Ever see The Munsters?" he asked. "Here's what I think when I watch MSNBC: you're Marilyn," referring to the only normal member of a family of monsters. "But everyone else over there is **** nuts. I'm not gonna tell you who Herman Munster is, but I will tell you I believe Chris Matthews is the dragon who lives under the stairs." "You know, I'm new there!" Maddow shot back. Maddow explained that she doesn't watch cable news because she doesn't have a TV — "I watch you on the online machine," she said to Stewart — but that she tries to stand out as a different voice from the "homogenized" landscape of cable news. The two then discussed Maddow's debates with Pat Buchanan (Grandpa Munster in Stewart's analogy) and her interviews with Barack Obama, who she described as "a policy dork." Still looking for that lack of nastiness, Bob... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, you can go here to get links to the following stories.....http://storyballoon.org/videos/maddow-insults-tim-phillips-responds/ # Rachel Maddow Goes After WorldNetDaily For Post About An Obama Impeachment. # Rachel Maddow Goes After Senator Ensign For Extra-Marital Affair. # Rachel Maddow Goes After Blackwater Trying To Distract From The Large Scale Fraud Of ACORN. #Rachel Maddow & Alan Grayson Bash Republicans..Again. 10/19/09. Grayson On The RNC “I can only imagine how much 30 pieces of silver their going to throw this time at the race.” # Right On Cue Maddow Attacks Reagan's School Speech & Parent's Concerns About Obama |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
If the writing you quote from National Review is Mr. Krauthammer's and you find Mr. Krauthammer impressive, it must be for some other piece of work. You write better than this, easily. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The problem is that the Democrats really don't understand how to be appropriately cutting and nasty in return, and are somewhat big fat stupid dumb targets for the Fox network because they keep trying to behave in some sort of gentlemanly fashion. These are examples of their "gentlemenly fashion, Bob. No, they can be nasty and cutting. The problem is they can't do it with any class and they turn people off with their tirades...thus their ratings. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Ms. Rhodes does have a bit of a potty mouth from time to time. On the other hand, she posts references to document the political points she makes. Can't say I was fond of what she said about Hillary or about everything that comes out of anybody's mouth. That would, I suppose, include my own at times, when I think about it. Mike Malloy tossed in some really nasty stuff about T. Boone Pickens this evening that I disagreed with. I happen to like a lot about Old T. Boone Pickens, including his philanthropy, and I thought that Mike Malloy was out of line in saying a number of things that he did. Going into detail is sort of off the point here, but it's true enough. I disagree with a lot of things that people say, but generally have very little trouble with Ms. Maddow and Mr. Obermann and Thom Hartmann and even Randi Rhodes, when she isn't being potty mouthed. I would happily tell you if I agreed or disagreed with any particular thing that they said, should you want to trot it by me. I have no particular wish to defend stupid things said by people that I usually admire. Sometimes, of course, the things that are quoted to me are taken somewhat out of context, and then I will defend them because I will generally agree with a message that has gotten distorted in transmission. Ms. Rhodes, I think, made a dumb call on the comments about Hillary Clinton. I would suggest to you that I have heard comments about her not very different coming from right wing sources. Some comments have suggested that she conspired to murder Vince Foster, for example, or that she was involved in criminal wrong-doing in the Whitewater non-affair. While they were not as pungent as Ms. Rhodes comments, I would suspect that they were considerably more vile and just as baseless. Perhaps you would like to suggest otherwise? I found Ms. Rhodes' comments more difficult in part because they came from a Democrat. I didn't find any particular problem with the other left wing talk show hosts. For the most part, I believe they had their facts down pretty well and they still generally fell considerably short of the standards of abuse set by the right wing folks, at least to my ear. Perhaps not to yours, but then — to borrow a gentler form of a phrase you seem to have taken a recent liking to — you might have a bit of bias there. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Thank you for the list of videos that you presented for my consideration. I haven't gotten through them all yet, but I have gotten through several: http://storyballoon.org/videos/maddow-insults-tim-phillips-responds/ This video presents as two separate reels. One is a version specifically edited to show Ms. Maddow and Mr. Phillips butting heads. The other proports to be the complete video but in fact is not. There are evident pieces edited out where Ms. Maddow begins to tell Mr. Phillips that she has in fact tackled some of the issues internal to the Democratic party that he has just told he that she hasn't. The film at that point stops and continues where Ms. Maddow is thanking Mr. Phillips for his appearance. The only insults that I can see are where Ms Maddow tells Mr. Phillips that his presentation of his organization as a grass roots organization is somewhat confused by the fact that it is staffed by political professionals from the RNC, and that the speaker they feature, the former governor of Virginia, who now works as a professional lobbyist, refuses to state whether he has any health care organizations on his client list. She also confronts Mr. Phillips about his refusal to say where his funding comes from — presumably a grassroots organization would have grassroots funding, while a party front organization would have funding coming from sources within the party and from large party donors. Should you wish to respond to the sort of insult this sort of thing involves, I'd be interested in hearing. To me it sounded like unwavering questioning and skillful examination. The "unedited" version was one I found particularly interesting. I also saw the video you described as, "# Rachel Maddow Goes After WorldNetDaily For Post About An Obama Impeachment." This seemed to me to be an interesting set of speculations about 1) WorldNetDaily and how the RNC was apparently taking a lively interest in this organization. I don't think this was the reason for your upset, however, though I might sympathize if it were. Ms. Maddow has a discussion with a Princeton Professor about the nature of the battle for control for the political narrative in this country. To me, this sort of discussion is lively, important and interesting. It ties in with some of the current developments in Psychotherapy, psychology, family therapy, social work, sociology and political science having to do with narrative frames. Some of the work goes back to what was called at the time, The Palo Alto Group. One of the members wrote a pretty accessible book that covers some of the basic theory in an interesting way. The author is Jay Haley, the book is The Power Tactics of Jesus Christ. I also watched, "# Rachel Maddow Goes After Blackwater Trying To Distract From The Large Scale Fraud Of ACORN." Actually, Ms. Maddow characterizes ACORN as a fairly flawed organization. She points out how the law that the two houses of congress passed creates a good deal of trouble, and why. She is in fact correct about the material she brings up. It does not distract from ACORN and whatever problems that it may or may not have, especially, I think, with finances. It does point out how this particular attempt to bring ACORN to heel will have unintended consequences that may not be so popular a little bit down the line. You will be aware of that; having of course seen these videos already, you will be aware that they show Ms. Maddow as a thoughtful and well centered woman who acknowledges the flaws in her allies and the virtues in the opponents. What puzzles me is why you might have thought these videos would have shown shortcomings in Ms. Maddow to anybody who actually watched them from beginning to end with an open mind. They certainly confirmed my personal admiration for the woman. I hope to have a chance to see the other videos over the next day or two. Thank you for bringing them to my attention. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ms. Rhodes does have a bit of a potty mouth from time to time. That's very benevolent of you, Bob. I wonder if your comment would be as condescending if that incredible bit of garbage were spoken by a conservative talk show host. Picture for a moment the backlash from the left in that scenario. On the other hand, she posts references to document the political points she makes. I see. It's fine then to call someone what she calls them if you can document them. I'd be interested in seeing her documentation on those descriptions. As much as I disliked Hillary, even I wouldn't go that far.While they were not as pungent as Ms. Rhodes comments, I would suspect that they were considerably more vile Really, Bob!? More vile than calling someone a (sexual act)(promiscuous person) on the air? Bob, you have blown your creditibility as being anywhere near unbiased here, I'm afraid. She even got blasted by her own party and was kicked off Air America and they didn't say she had "a bit of a potty mouth". The fact that she is on the air anywhere shows the lack of class both she and the Democrats have. I believe they had their facts down pretty well and they still generally fell considerably short of the standards of abuse set by the right wing folks, at least to my ear. No problem, Bob. In my opinion, your belief and your ear could both use a medical checkup but it's become fairly standard that you operate with a complete double standard where things like this are presented. What puzzles me is why you might have thought these videos would have shown shortcomings in Ms. Maddow to anybody who actually watched them from beginning to end with an open mind. They certainly confirmed my personal admiration for the woman. Actually, I did not present these videos to show her shortcomings, Bob. They need to learn and practice the sort of cut and parry that's been the mainstay of the English House of Commons for centuries, enjoy it, develop a sincerely vicious pro-Liberal Press that is fully as rude as Fox but on the other side of the fence, and then simply get on with the business of governance. I presented them to refute your claim that left-wing talk show hosts are too polite, not rude enough and deficient in their cut-and-parry techniques to be able to compete with FOX. They are certanily rude enough, not polite enough, and do their best to cut and parry with the best of them. The problem is they don't have the talent for it. They come across to the public as ranters and ravers instead of people one wants to pay attention to. They don't try to build up the country....they try to knock it down. They don't show any positivity...they try to be as negative as possible. Personally I don't mind. As long as they continue the way they are, Fox will continue to dwarf them in the ratings and they are too dumb to figure that out. Say waht you want about Limbaugh and Hannity and O'Reilly but they are gentlemen. They look like gentlemen, they present themselves like gentlemen and their messages come across in a way that people respect. What kind of rebuttal would a Democrat like yourself have to that?... the addict Limbaugh As, I said, Bob, there is quite the lack of class among Democrats. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Rachel Maddow etc. versus Glenn Beck etc.? At first glance, and both of them are fairly new to me, they're the same - two politically biased presenters giving their own opinion. There is a difference though if you scratch the surface, Beck presents his opinion based on purported facts that, generally, turn out to be either completely false or badly presented. Maddow has the same political bias and is also presenting her opinion but when you check the facts behind the opinion they, on balance, turn out to be true. Why is Beck more popular? Beck supplies a ready-made opinion to people who can't be bothered to find reasons to support their own. A large segment of his audience want to believe the tripe he's spouting and can see no advantage in doing a bit of background checking to prove that his, and ultimately there own opinions, are flawed. You can see the evidence of that every day in these forums. People post quotes from other people's opinions or links to sites that seem to support their own beliefs simply because they happen to parallel their own view. They don't check the validity of what they're quoting; they simply accept everything without question. What you end up with is an opinion by proxy, which is dangerous if the opinion you're deciding to adopt has more holes than a Swiss cheese. Mike found that out in this thread: /pip/Forum6/HTML/001845.html He posted somebody else's opinion then found himself on the back foot defending it when it turned out to be complete nonsense. So why is Maddow less popular? Her potential audience simply aren't in the market for an opinion by proxy - they're busy forming their own opinion by going to the source of the facts - I daresay a lot of her potential audience are actually too busy watching Beck before researching the facts to prove his opinion doesn't hold water and their own opinion is superior. Fox and Obama? The administration is making a mistake, Fox news and Fox opinion are sometimes hard to segregate but they are two different entities. He should ignore the opinion side and continue to give access to the Fox news reporters. That's my opinion. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Beck presents his opinion based on purported facts that, generally, turn out to be either completely false or badly presented. How do you define generally, grinch? 7% of the time? 50%? 35%? Are you prepared to back up that statement with anything factual? Beck supplies a ready-made opinion to people who can't be bothered to find reasons to support their own. A large segment of his audience want to believe the tripe he's spouting and can see no advantage in doing a bit of background checking to prove that his, and ultimately there own opinions, are flawed. But of course. You have joined the ranks of LR and Bob (unsurprisingly) that the FOX audience is simply made up of ignorant, bug-eating, trailer trash types sitting on their couches, chanting "Go, Beck!" That's quite a sweeping statement for the tens of millions of people who watch FOX. You believe in facts over opinions, grinch. Do you have any facts to support your portrait of these ignoramuses...or are you just tossing out an opinion? they're busy forming their own opinion by going to the source of the facts So there we have it. Maddox listeners are deep-thinking intellectuals while Beck's are lazy nogoodniks who believe in little more than having a beer. I daresay you have never shown your bias so completely here, Mr. grinch. You've listed nothing factual and responded with little more than your own personal opinion, which happens to support Maddoz and damn Beck. Thanks for such an informative response.... |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I'd say the facts are either completely wrong or badly presented 100% of the time Mike. Granted I haven't watched everything he's presented but I think I've watched enough to form an opinion. Maddow by comparison does much better in my opinion, researching what she presents as facts returns fairly consistent results matching what she says, which suggests that on the whole they're correctly presented. quote: I wouldn't call them ignorant Mike and I didn't, you, Bob and LR can call them what you like, I think they're simply happy and content to receive affirmation that what they believe is correct. Beck gives them that and they've no inclination to look any further. They aren't alone in that respect, Maddow does have a regular audience, the chances are a fair amount of them are looking for an opinion by proxy. Maddow's potential audience however is smaller. quote: Am I tossing out an opinion? Hell yes. The big clue to that is the fact that I said as much at the foot of my post. It's my opinion based on the facts as I see them quote: Biased? Guilty as charged. I looked at Becks output and at Maddow's output, I checked the purported facts of each and researched whether they were correct or badly presented. I found that Maddow won hands down when it came to presenting facts. Based on that I'm heavily biased when I form the opinion that Beck is an idiot and the only reason to watch him is to laugh at his inane claims and crocodile tears. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
OK, so be it. Fox watchers are uneducated, lazy, uninterested in facts miscreants and liberal talk show watchers are polite, educated, informed, decent folks. Fox gets the ratings and msnbc doesn't. Life just ain't fair sometimes, is it? Have a good day, grinch. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
p.s. By THE WASHINGTON TIMES Let's face it. Fox News runs stories that the Obama administration would rather ignore - from the sleaziness and corruption in the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) to the bizarre views and actions of senior presidential appointees such as Van Jones and Kevin Jennings. Although the Obama team doesn't trust Fox News, a surprisingly large number of Democrats do. A new Pew Research Center for the People & the Press poll released on Sept. 13 shows that Fox News is more trusted - even by Democrats - than the New York Times. While 43 percent of Democrats have a positive view of Fox News, 39 percent feel the same way about the Times. Among Republicans and independents, Fox News does have huge 56 and 26 percentage point leads. As the survey indicates, Fox's audience is not just composed of conservatives but includes plenty of liberals and moderates, too. This probably is because viewers appreciate hard-hitting news that is different from the administration line regurgitated everywhere else on TV. Its independence helps explain why Fox News regularly has more viewers than CNN, MSNBC and CNN Headline News combined. Data illustrates that Fox is more evenhanded than its competitors. A Pew analysis showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Mr. Obama as well as 40 percent of those on Sen. John McCain were negative during the last six weeks of the 2008 presidential campaign. By contrast, CNN had a 22 percentage point gap and MSNBC a 59 percentage point spread in favor of Mr. Obama. The White House is so protected by soft-focus coverage that anything not tilted its way is considered an act of war. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/15/fox-hunting/ |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I don't agree with your opinion here Mike. As I clearly said in my last post. If I were to hazard a guess I'd say that the education levels of both sets of watchers was, on average, about equal. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, quote: Oh stop! Now you're simply fishing for compliments! Yours cheerfully, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Just giving Grinch's and your descriptions, Bob. Grinch has clarified that they are not unintelligent so I guess the lazy and uninterested in facts must still stand...no problem. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I don't think your assertion that they're lazy or uninterested in facts stands up to scrutiny Mike. As I said I think they're simply happy and content believing what they want to believe. Beck just gives them the illusion that they were right all along. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, Compared to whom, Mike? The Grinch is a fact-digesting factory. I wouldn't pretend to have his grasp on them. I wouldn't think you would either. It's simply a silly comparison. Loyalty and actual fact and reality ought to have more of a relation to each other. I suspect that a lot of conservatives don't have as much trust of facts as liberals do. Facts do better in some sorts of discussions, feelings in others. The difficult part is trying to find some way of balancing the two in any one discussion. To much in any single direction and you fall off the high wire. That's the way I figure it. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I guess a lot depends on the definition of 'facts'. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
I'd go with the universally accepted definition Denise: A fact is a pragmatic truth that can be verified and confirmed. Can you verify or confirm that ACORN has committed voter registration fraud Denise? If not the definition of vilification may be more useful. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Time will tell. Investigations are ongoing. ACORN is set up in such a way as to make it difficult to pin them down on anything. Employees have been investigated, indicted and convicted. There is an investigation going on in Louisiana, I think, regarding the embezzlement by Dale Rathke, but even if they charge anyone in that fiasco and coverup, it can still be asserted that ACORN, the organization, isn't guilty of anthing, just a few bad apples at the top, similar to the few bad apples at the bottom reasoning for the lower level miscreants. I forget which State it is but another trial is ongoing in fraud charges against a local ACORN head, which no doubt will be chalked up to a bad apple in the middle. I think ACORN, the organization, has itself pretty well insulated. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
...in the same way they had to get Capone on tax evasion. I would imagine that Grinch in the 1930's would ridicule the charges that Big Al was a murderer, extorter or crime boss since he was never convicted of being one. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: That isn't true Denise. The reason ACORN can't be pinned down on charges of voter fraud or voter registration fraud, apart from the obvious, is that the registration system is set up in such a way that they couldn't do either even if they wanted to. Bob, You're pretty much spot on with regard to the rules surrounding voter registration as you described them in the other thread. All organisations are legally obliged to deliver all registration forms regardless of the perceived authenticity of the contents. The only person legally allowed to decline or destroy a registration form is the official registrar. To help in the process some registrars insist that the forms are pre-sorted into three types before being presented - probably correct, probably correct but incomplete and dubious. However it's the registrars responsibility to verify all forms before granting the applicant the right to vote. It's also the registrar's responsibility to report high numbers of dubious forms presented from any single organisation, a safeguard to highlight a potential attempt to intentionally defraud the voter registration process. Figures from registrars show that the number of dubious forms presented by ACORN averaged 7% of the total forms they submitted. The average for all such organisations - Republican and Democrat - is 5 to 7%. The question has to be asked, if every organisation is following the same system and achieving the same or similar results why is ACORN alone being singled out for special treatment? . [This message has been edited by Grinch (10-25-2009 11:49 AM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: You have a vivid imagination Mike. Unfortunately the case of Capone and ACORN are fundamentally different. The biggest difference being that the system of voter registration in place means that ACORN couldn't commit voter fraud or voter registration using that process. To make the two cases the same would require Capone to submit applications to Elliot Ness before every murder and attempt to extort and for Elliot Ness to sign them all off as legal and above board. Maybe in your imagination Mike, but in the real world? I think not. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
To make the two cases the same would require Capone to submit applications to Elliot Ness before every murder and attempt to extort Not at all. Capone could simply apply for permits to set up "community organizer" houses to aid Italian refugees and the poor. If some of his organizers happened to use murder and extortion....hey, that's not Al's fault, is it? Obviously he never told them to use those tactics because he was never convicted of it. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Presumably in your imagined scenario Capone was reporting them to the FBI too - just like ACORN. Is there a dragon in this fairytale Mike? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
only your viewpoint, grinch On an interesting sidenote, This Week with George Stephanopolous had on their round table discussion this morning Laura Ingraham, Fox news contributor. Such a beautiful thing...I cannot remember in recent history any Fox personality being included in the round table. Coincidence that this happened right after Obama's declared war on Fox? LOL...wonder if Barack felt the knifeblade slide between his ribs |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I was surprised to see her on there too. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I’ve seen the phrase “Chicago Way” used a number of times in articles I’ve read. There’s that, but “The Peter Principle” I think is also at play here. Obama comes from a world where word games can bring power and prosperity especially when you’re preaching to the choir. As president he and his chosen ones are dealing with a very different congregation and they’re proving just simply not up to it. By the way, I would every day push Charles Krauthammer ten miles in his chair up hills over gravel roads to learn from him. . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: quote: |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear John, I would rather hear what you have to say. Fascinating as you may find Mr. Krauthammer, what you have to say seems more genuine to me. Even Mr. Hanson, the whose writing seems wonderful and, depending on the subject, fascinating as well, and well worth the reading, would be a distant second. And I do buy Mr. Hanson's books, occasionally even a political rant, simply to enjoy his prose and the superb quality of his invective and sarcasm when he's ranting, and for his lucidity and the joy of his exposition when he's talking about Greek Hoplite Warfare. He has something of your authenticity as well. I don't agree with him on politics any more than I do with you, but I admire the person I believe I see behind the writing. There are healthier ways to get your exercise, I'd suspect. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “Barack Obama sees worst poll rating drop in 50 years The decline in Barack Obama's popularity since July has been the steepest of any president at the same stage of his first term for more than 50 years.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6409721/Barack-Obama-sees-worst-poll-rating-drop-in-50-years.html Which few even he I imagine is unaware of . . . . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I have to agree with you, John, and with The Telegraph, that a decline from 78% to 52% is astonishing. Of course, I don't recall that 78% actually voted for him, did they? And I suspect that the actual popularity would depend on whom it was measured against and what issues were brought up. In my quick scan of the article, I don't recall which organization ran the actual poll, although I'd be inclined to say that the numbers seem about right, at least on some dimensions. I don't know how curious about more details on this matter you'd be? My best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
It was a Gallup poll Bob. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
WHo can say? I don't what our national poll LR cites means either. I wasn't aware we had a national poll. His ratings have dropped dramatically, no matter how you paint them. The Gallup poll Grinch points out shows that the ratings have gone from 68-23-21 on 1/23 to 54-39-7 on 10/22, the numbers being approval-disapproval-unsure. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I might be wrong Mike but doesn't 68-23-21 add up to 112% Did they ask some Canadians perchance? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: WE don't. You'll notice that is a citation properly linked to its source -- Public Policy Polling which is selected specifically because it is highly praised by the WSJ -- a conservative NEWSpaper -- published by your hero -- Rupert Murdoch. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No, grinch, no Canadians - just me with a little dyslexia kicking in make that 68-12-21 (as, of course, you checked) |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LR, your link only pointed to a website that said the exact thing you copied and pasted. Where is the actual poll? ah, never mind...too complicated for my brain right now. Be well.... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
You're right Mike, and I apologize -- I didn't realize their blog doesn't link back to their main site: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/ |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
It would be interesting to know what it was they disapproved of, no matter what the figures are. I think there are probably quite a number of theories running around about that, from both left and right, and would be fascinating to have hard data. It would tell us so much about the electorate, and so much about the parties as well, and how they approach the electorate — whether their approaches are based on one or another sort of reading of the electorate. All sorts of interesting things to think about in that. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
