Not a visible opinion. The assertion was favorable bias toward W and his administration, which is visible. As it was for Palin, until she herself attacked the media, and still is in many venues. But doubtless some media folks actually like W. The giant love-fest of Mission Accomplished is still warming the occasional soul, no doubt. And James Guckert did, by all appearances.
One thing you've got going for you: Bottom-shelf arguments are fun Oh, quit lying. Talk about wasting words. What irritated me was that you Quit puffing your chest, troll. What, you mean pointing out that I'd disclaimed the link as a liberal dossier? Or the part where I responded to your bogus appeal to the facts by pointing out that you'd omitted some? Whatever you say, troll. Oh, hey, I know! How about I say something really stupid here, you know, the kind of thing a bottom-shelf intellect aiming to be a petty troll would say? Like, I didn't invite you to participate in this thread[/i[? Maybe if it wasn't such a strain on your resources, you might make your point clear instead of trolling about and then trying to pretend you're some poor, innocent passer-by who is randomly attacked. Especially when your story doesn't match what's on the record. You should learn to read, Counte. Or would you rather write my posts for me? Someone says Palin was the most qualified candidate, and what should I say? Come on, troll. I'm sure you can come up with something stupid enough. Don't quite your day job, whatever the hell that is. Whether you're trying to be a psychologist or a comedian with that, you're no better at it than you were a journalist. Well, what then, genius? Oh, I know! If I want to offer someone a general overview of liberal objections to a candidate, I'll go get Rush Limbaugh's take on it. How fucking brilliant, eh? How stupid do you think people are, Counte? Truth is, you chimed in with an idiotic point hoping to pick a fight, and now you've got it, and you've got nothing useful to go with. You're picking an issue that is at best irrelevant, and may actually help establish the legitimacy of what the link was intended to communicate. Of course, silly me, I should have just written a long post, bouncing around the internet to pick up news links from all over, and then you could complain about the effort I was putting into, oh, I don't know, trashing Sarah Palin, or whatever else your sick obsession might come up with. And yet you're so entertained, aren't you? If you're bored, why do you bother picking a fight with me? So quit your damn trolling, Counte. How illiterate are you that you get that out of the paragraph you're responding to? (chortle!) So you make a random attack then complain that I want to bicker, and pretend that I bore you. That would be funny, Counte, if it wasn't indicative of your sickness. Bottom line, quit trolling, Counte. If I bore you so much, why do you bother?
I don't bother that often. In fact, I left for about four months, largely because all the conversations here ended up like this, thanks to the likes of you, your buddy Ice and your demagogue friend Sam. It truly was a waste of time. On top of that, I was struck one evening by the realization that the person who argues with fools maybe more foolish than the actual fools, so I left. To be even more blunt: This doesn't mean that much to me. Or at least, it doesn't mean as much to me as it does to someone like you (and you need to look up the term troll by the way, as you seem to have no understanding of its meaning). You see, unlike you, I don't spend hours online, writing endlessly droll posts with ridiculous citations all in the vain hope that someone out there cares or that the intellect on display -- or the lack thereof -- is making a difference, because the truth is, very few people care and it makes absolutely no difference. Also, I have a fucking life. And though it pains you to admit it is so, the truth is that when I was a journalist (one of your favorite talking points), I reached more people and had more influence than you will probably have in your entire life of churning out blog entries that no one reads. You know the ones you write to pass the time in between getting high, locating the next cup of Peruvian java or the newest Marxist bookshop? I mention my former profession -- and the access and reach therein -- not to show off or attract attention to myself, but merely to contextualize the absolute silliness of your misguided self-importance and to explain why I don't pitch hissy fits and act like a princess with a stolen ring whenever someone has the temerity to challenge me or disagree with my opinion. I mean, seriously? How many times have you tried to have me banned from this site? A dozen? More? The idea of banning someone from this site -- even the people I "hate," if that's possible, digitially speaking -- has never even crossed my mind. I just can't take it that seriously. . . We end up arguing, because in the end, people like you -- ideologues -- can't do anything other than argue personally with the people in the discussion. Why is this? Well, largely it has to do with you being completely incapable of acknowledging the legitimacy contrary beliefs. There is ONE truth to you. That's it. You're not here to discuss, debate or learn that truth (you ALREADY know it). You are here to lecture, inform and garner affirmations from teenage boys, some of whom probably think you are smart. And anyone who threatens your self-percieved greatness in your all-important little intellectual fiefdom must be cast as homophobes, conservatives, bigots, racists and whatever other inaccuarte labels you wrongly apply to people, because YOU CAN'T BE WRONG. And hey, maybe if you beat those little fists of yours long and loudly enough someone, somewhere in cyberspace will actually carry about your sorry little point of view. In the meantime, playing the intellectual brownshirt has its advantages to your ego, right?
Not all of "the" conversations - all of yours. And they didn't just end up like this, they also started like this, quite often. We have a clue to the basic problem. Count, your self-claimed former profession "contextualizes" you, your posts, not other people's. The voice(s) in your head "contextualizes" your thoughts, not mine. In particular, it "contextualizes" the fact that you spend most of your posting bandwidth here focused on irrelevancies of personal attribute or history, about which you are not informed and understandably in continual error, and most of the rest on irrelevancies of others' posts, about which your continual errors are less understandable, since the originals are right in front of you. And the manner of this focus of yours, already misplaced, is always and inevitably dealing insult. You do almost nothing else with your time here. Questions of motive naturally arise.
Well, at least you took the time to say it Well, if you don't like the likes of me, perhaps you should keep your useless, snide bullshit to yourself. If you have a useful point to make, by all means make it. But if you're going to embarrass yourself complaining that a liberal resource was used to consider what liberals were saying about an issue, don't expect any sympathy. Good to know. Zerika looked at the soldier carefully, noting his unbent posture, the attitude of humble respect that can only come from one who is secure in his own place, the lines of sorrow and joy on his face. At length, she said, "My lord, you are not being entirely honest with me." ....."Your Majesty?" ....."Do you require me to repeat myself?" ....."I heard, but I do not understand." ....."What could be plainer? I believe that you wish to resign, but I do not believe you have told me the true reason." ....."I can only do myself the honor of repeating myself to Your Majesty, and, as that might be considered disrespectful, I must refrain from doing so, wherefore I stand mute." ....."Permit me to observe, Captain, that you require more words to stand mute than you should have required to answer my question ...." —Steven Brust The potential for damage is unimaginable. (chortle!) To recall an old conversation: Countezero: If the Republicans traded the Democrats the immigration bill for pulling out the withdrawal date then that party has truly lost sight of its conservative principles. The immigration bill is going to reshape the entire scope of this country. The war, by comparison, is small potatoes... Superstring01: With your political antennae, I'm surprised you don't have more insight. I can say with some security, there is NO WAY this bill wasn't sent from the hill without some backroom deal giving the Dems something in return. Countezero: Oh, I had the insight, which is why I shared my prospective analysis... Superstring01: I was hoping for some more meat and potatoes. But, the insight is always appreciated. Countezero: I honestly can't say much else. I'm knee-deep in budget hearings right now. Otherwise I'd call my state's pair of Senators up and try to get some response with meaning out of them, a difficult task to be sure... But at least they got booed at the state convention last weekend by their own party! ("Democrats to Fund Iraq War with NO Pullout Date") In truth, Counte, the only reason I mention your profession is that I find it somewhere between astounding and morbidly hilarious that a journalist should have such poor reading comprehension, proclaim such ignorance about the industry, and demonstrate such disdain for integrity. Whatever useful ideas you might have you seem to have made secondary to your love for sensationalism and melodrama. Nay. I wouldn't be surprised if I've tried before, but I don't recall. Generally, I make a point of periodically asking that you be treated the same as any other member, but that's simply not going to happen. You really should stop presuming to hold yourself up as a universal representation. Then you wouldn't make such foolish statements that you have no hope of demonstrating and, at best, would only somewhat embarrass yourself by. Such an assessment would have at least some merit were you a man capable of reading even two consecutive sentences without completely botching the affair. But I do hope you feel better having gotten all that off your chest. ___________________ Notes: Brust, Steven. Sethra Lavode. New York: Tor, 2004.
"please study ...." That tack is nothing more than asking someone to go out and do your thinking for you, write your argument for you, and make your point for you. Wrong, I was merely saying to examine it for yourself. More to the point, I wanted you to see it for yourself, not simply take my word for it. If, for instance, I am left to speculate as to your meaning, I could easily pick sex scandals, torture, and Bush himself. All media sensationalism. They report it exactly the way they want the public to see it. Sex scandals, and your later reference to Clinton concerning this, was made out to be a sex scandal, because if it were reported why he was being impeached. He would have had to have been removed from office. Compare the chief law enforcement officer of the land perjuring himself to a sex scandal? Now which seems less impeachable? Clearly, a sex scandal does not rise (no pun intended) to the level of impeachment. Torture, in spite of Maddow & company's cries, has been an effective tool to gain information from enemy combatants (truly the key phrase considering how the media typically reports it) about future activities. No, a government or its military should not take someone off the street at random and torture them. You would be correct. That is immoral. But using torture on enenmy combatants is entirely different. Bush, do I really need to say anything here? The media biases here are simply too obvious to review. And no I don't buy the Bush gave them plenty of material. He gave them very little. The rest is cultural presumption that everyone is a lefty. All of this without ever realizing how much of a lefty Bush is himself. See, that's the thing that I don't get here. Both you and Countezero seem to have a problem with the idea that a liberal-advocacy website should be considered a reasonable resource for summarizing a general liberal argument. Sorry, guys, but I just don't see the conflict. While you make a good point about presenting your POV, as does Count in other post concerning human biases, the greater issue is that the media outlets you typically want to use as your source of information usually ignores facts or totally misinterprets them. Tell you what, I will start linking limbaugh, hannity, leven, horowitz, drudge, church, wilkow, most, if not all have been demonize on this intellectual board. Then tell me if you still can't see a conflict? I prefer to listen and read a variety of sources and come to my own conclusion. The great problem for me is that most of the sources are not independent thinking enough. By that I don't mean that the source themselves are not independent thinking, I mean more that I border on anarchy as I understand it. Not the marxist undestanding, but my own understanding of extreme personal responsibility within the confines of natural law. Most sources do not operate under that extreme condition. Therefore sources typically include some government boundaries, the less the better. Hence the aforementioned sources (with the exception of drudge), they are usually more for individual responsibility and less government than the rest of the media. But even saying that I have fallen for the trap, because limbaugh, hannity, leven, horowitz, church, wilkow are not news outlets. They are analyzers of news, with some news reporting to go along with it. That is not to say that I abhor government, though I do more than I don't, but it is to say that my idea of government is that it has absolutely only two functions. Both cut from the same cloth, national and personal defense. And even that should be constructed as little as possible.
On facts, opinions, sources, &c. You want me to see what for myself? To not simply take your word for what? Don't get me wrong, I see the phrase, "how much access some media leanings get compared to another media leaning". But then there's your statement that, "In short, when republicans have erred much of the United States will know about it. When democrats err most conservatives will know, and usually that's it." Well, I've looked into media bias and discussed it many times here. And my answer is still the same: the overt media bias is toward money. In your opinion, is the way "they" want the public to see it independent of what the public actually wants? I only note the strangeness of the sentence structure there in case I interpret the point wrongly; let me know if I do. However, if the story was reported about why he was being impeached, there are a number of ways that could be said. A couple possible formulations: • President Clinton lied under oath about an alleged sexual liaison in response to questions asked in a sexual harassment lawsuit. • After Republican-backed lawyers compelled the courts to make an unusual—if not unprecedented decision—to allow a lawsuit against a sitting president concerning issues not directly related to his presidency to go forward, President Clinton played semantics in the course of answering questions about an unrelated alleged sexual liaison. The former is more political, but at least it sounds concise. The latter may look awkward, but more accurately represents the relevant events. The former might suggest impeachment, even among senators who themselves were struggling to hide evidence of their own extramarital affairs, but is essentially a partisan summary. The latter would be a strange reason for impeachment. One of the reasons Clinton did not perjure himself is that he clung very tightly to a narrow definition of specific terms used in the questions. This is important. Consider this web page purporting to debunk claims of Clinton's perjury: Another common misperception is over the role of legal definitions. A famous example is the definition of "sexual relations." Many people are outraged that Clinton does not consider oral sex to be sex. Obviously, people have a common-sense definition of sex. As one Clinton critic wrote: "Sex is sex is sex is sex. I know sex when I see it." But although everyone has a "common-sense" definition of sex, few of these definitions agree. In a survey of 600 college students, 60 percent said they would not have "had sex" if the activity were oral-genital contact .... This statistic alone is an argument-stopper .... .... The ambiguity of common-sense definitions is what causes lawyers to agree to legal definitions. Legal definitions clearly state what a behavior is and is not. Far from obfuscating and confusing the issue, legal definitions are like dictionaries that clarify meaning and draw lines between concepts. They allow a person to know exactly what he’s talking about. And they not only protect defendants from accidental perjury charges, but allow prosecutors to see perjury more clearly and prosecute it more successfully. The trick, of course, is to craft good legal definitions. The lawyers for Paula Jones badly bungled their definition of sexual relations, coming up with one that did not include oral sex performed on Clinton. (More on this below.) Clinton answered absolutely truthfully; according to that legal definition of "sexual relations," he did not have sex with Ms. Lewinsky .... In 1994, Paula Jones filed a lawsuit against Bill Clinton, claiming that he had sexually harassed her three years earlier. The Paula Jones case led to a deposition in January 1998, in which the Jones lawyers questioned witnesses about possible sexual activity and sexual harassment involving Bill Clinton. Clinton himself testified before the deposition on January 17, 1998. During this deposition, he denied having "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky, as the court defined the term. His answers convinced his enemies that he had committed perjury. Because Vernon Jordan was involved in both the Whitewater scandal and a job search for Ms. Lewinsky, Ken Starr expanded his Whitewater investigation into the Monica Lewinsky affair. On April 1, 1998, Judge Susan Webber Wright threw out the Jones case, arguing that even if the charges were true, they did not constitute sexual harassment. However, Ken Starr held a Grand Jury hearing on August 17, 1998, in which Bill Clinton was questioned about alleged perjury in his deposition testimony. Clinton's enemies thought his answers in this second round of testimony produced new examples of perjury, and both his testimonies were presented in the Starr Report as grounds for impeachment. (Huppi) Now, perhaps there are many who still find such semantics disgraceful, and, in truth, had the actual issue at hand been substantial—that is, had it been something germane to his presidency, and had it not come about as the result of an investigation into alleged criminal conduct in which the alleged criminals lost money—the outrage over Clinton's testimony might have been sufficient to see him thrown out of office. In the first place, the reports of torture stopping terrorist attacks are, at present, mere propaganda—the say-so of an executive administration already known to lie very nearly compulsively. To the other, even if we grant that administration claims are true, torture is still illegal under American law and international laws to which we have agreed. Third, using torture on an "enemy combatant" is the same as torturing any other criminal suspect. Do I really need to say anything here? Okay, I will anyway. You seem to be implying that invading Iraq is a lefty impulse. Or that attempting to create a legal "gray zone" that is somehow outside the jurisdiction of either international or American law is a lefty impulse. Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz: they're such lefties, aren't they? The media biases are "simply too obvious to review"? If you're trying to make the case for a liberal media bias, no, they're not. If you wish to place these events in the context of a media bias toward money (via circulation, ratings, and advertising revenue), well, yes, 'twixt you and I, at least, the bias would be so obvious that we need not detail it. Tell you what: When Countezero shows that he is capable of understanding the role of the various sources he complains about in the context of any given post, his opinion will be worth something more than, well, let us simply say that he doesn't do perceptions of his character any good. When he shows he is capable of reading two consecutive sentences without completely fucking up the effort, well, that would be at least a start. And let's take the Greenwald links about the Pentagon story as an example: If I could give you substantial information from major media sources, I would. But they are—at best—few and far between. Somewhere around the internet (I'll have to dig up the link, if you care) is a clock counting the time between the scandal breaking and the major media sources who got their asses burned by it actually giving it substantial address. Those should be sufficiently easy to refute. After all, they are people who maintain the liberal media conspiracy myth as a justification for their own political purposes. Indeed. And one of the things you'll find in a blog like Greenwald's, for instance, is a plethora of links containing the information upon which he bases his opinions. It's easier, then, for one to say, "Ah! Greenwald is just a worthless liberal pansy!" instead of reading those sources. One who disagrees, for instance, with the ThinkProgress dossier on Palin could read the relevant articles—linked from sources including Alaska Business Monthly, BusinessWeek, New York Times, Politco, ABC News, McClatchy, Anchorage Daily News, Ketchican Dail News, Associated Press, Newsmax (a conservative news service originally funded by arch-conservative Richard Mellon Scaife), Fairbanks Daily News-Miner Reuters, Kudlow & Co., Governor Palin herself, Charleston Post and Courier, the Alaska Inaugural Committee, Washington Post, Talking Points Memo, Daily Sitka Sentinel, KTUU television, Los Angeles Times, MTV, Slate, Washington Blade, On the Issues, GovTech, the National Conference of State Legislators, Rod Blagojevich, Kaiser Network, Bloomberg, and Seattle Times—and make whatever point he wishes about the sources. But it's easier to simply pretend that the positions described were invented out of thin air because ThinkProgress is a liberal website. And, naturally, as some don't like long posts, it would be hard to avoid writing one that covers all the sources. It is much shorter to simply dismiss ThinkProgress because it is liberal. Personal definitions are often obscure and might require some explaining. In the event, however, I agree that many if not most news sources suffer a dearth of independent thinking. I would amend that to say that those sources you listed are more for individual responsibility aside from their own. I consider them somewhat dishonest, but as I said, refuting them, while sometimes a laborious affair, doesn't take a tremendous intellectual investment. One of the conflicts I encounter with certain members around here is that while they may or may not recognize the same about the names you've listed, they refuse to regard the other side of the aisle in the same manner; that is, instead of recognizing someone like Glenn Greenwald as analyzing the news from his own perspective, they pretend that he somehow thinks he is a purveyor of news—that way, it's much easier to complain that he is pretentious and thereby dismiss him as unimportant. This, of course, has the convenient effect of excusing one from offering a substantial response. Some would add trade and economy to those concerns. In the case of the United States government, its purpose is listed at the outset. ____________________ Notes: Huppi, Tom. "Myth: Clinton committed perjury". Huppi.com. Accessed January 7, 2008. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonperjury.html See Also: "The Sarah Palin Digest". ThinkProgress.org. Accessed January 7, 2009. http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/ United States Constitution. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
This a good example: 1) Maddow &Co are late to the crying game. The objections to US installation of government torture programs, including dedicated facilities and specialized training, go back several years. Why are you associating a long-running argument over policy with a johnny-come -lately media figure only tangentially involved ? 2) You have little or no evidence that torture has been an effective tool for gaining information. (The publicly quoted, politically and legally influenced, alleged and anecdotal opinions of the torturers themselves, especially those professionally engaged in deception, is of course almost worthless as evidence). 3) You have little or no argument that torture is an effective tool for gaining information, for the US. The main reason for that is that you never even consider the concept and reality of net longterm overall gain/loss from actual events as opposed to immediate profit from cherrypicked hypotheticals. 4) According to all the evidence we - and you - have, most of the people tortured by the US, in its specially arranged facilities and political special arrangements, according to its new policies, were more or less "randomly picked up off the street". And the objections to that are not just moral in the goody-two-shoes sense, but moral in the pragmatic and warning-of-bad-effects sense. So we have a curious phenomenon: you are making a case based entirely on unfounded suppositions of event and invalid (torture has obtained info) or irrelevant (what if a terrorist nuclear bomb etc etc) arguments, while adopting media propaganda language and the cover-ass euphemisms of big-government perps (enemy combatant? WTF? like Maher Arar?), and then requiring of others that they produce impossible levels of "proof" before you will even deal with or consider their arguments. You demand that others meet levels of evidence and certainty of deduction so far above anything you demand of yourself that they amount to different kinds of argument altogether. Do you see that?
Tiassa: had it been something germane to his presidency Had this truly been over a sex scandal, it would never had gotten to the point of impeachment. But, since, it was not merely a sex scandal (as the Clinton's and the media wanted the public to believe) it reached the level of impeachment. Lying under oath in a court of law as the chief law officer of the land is germane to the office. Please note, simply lying is not germane. A president, irrespective of party, may from time to time have to do so to prevent societal panic or whatever. That said, lying under oath in a court of law is germane to his office. Hence, why the media made it into a huge sex scandal. The American public would have demanded his head, if it were reported the way it went down. Instead, the media determined how the public felt about it and the rest is history. Which is why you understood exactly what I meant when I said that "they" report it the way 'they' want you to see it. How you got what you got, I will never know. I think you were simply being obtuse (haha). In the first place, the reports of torture stopping terrorist attacks are, at present, mere propaganda—the say-so of an executive administration already known to lie very nearly compulsively. Tiassa, this administration has not lied compulsively. Again to the Maddow & Olbermann crowd, yes, that is all that ever comes out of George W. Bush's mouth. The fact is torture is used often in combat and is effective. Note: in combat. Many here and in the media have made it out as if Bush sent secret agents on the American public and captured them and then tortured them. It doesn't happen. Torture is used militarily not domestically. If you know of local law enforcement that uses this, it is not because of Bush. Sorry!! Am I supposed to believe that the only liars in politics come from the right? Because they don't anymore than the only liars coming from the left!!! Stop it. seriously you are undermining your own argument by making such outrageous statements. I don't have time now, but suffice as to say. No I am not saying that invading Iraq is a lefty policy. However, your response proves my point about Bush as a lefty.
(Insert Title Here) Lying under oath in a court of law according to which definition? A vernacular, or a legalistic? As the assertion I cited goes, Clinton did not lie because the definition of sexual relations was so restricted. In other words, while one might find his conduct questionable, the court did not consider it perjury because his answers accorded with the applicable definitions. If the American public would have demanded his head for giving responses that accorded specifically with the applicable legal definitions, then the American public has some problems of their own to work through. One might suggest that you, sir, are being obtuse in failing to recognize the influence of market demand. Aluminum tubes? Mobile germ-warfare laboratories? Are you suggesting that they somehow didn't know they were using suspect information that was not verified? The Plame issue? Environmental impact around Ground Zero in New York? The administration was not involved in torture (you know, it was just a few bad seeds)? We know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction? Smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud? Yellowcake from Nigeria? And what do those words mean to you? Obviously, the first question to mind is whether you consider prison camps to be "in combat". As to whether torture is effective, General Petraeus disagrees with you: Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. That would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone 'talk;' however, what the individual says may be of questionable value. In fact, our experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual (2-22.3) on Human Intelligence Collector Operations that was published last year shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees. Rendition of suspects to foreign countries where they are tortured, and what happened to detainees in our specific custody are the issues. Sorry. Not at all. Politicians are politicians. We, the People, accept a certain degree of dishonesty from our politicians. The Bush administration, however, went well beyond that standard. Furthermore, they undermine their own credibility. And speaking of low credibility in the Bush administration, consider assertions by the Bush administration—made before an audience at the U.S. Army War College—regarding four terror attacks the administration prevented. The JFK airport plot that could have wrought "unfathomable damage, deaths, and destruction" was actually a minor or even nonexistent threat. The president's claim is also undermined by charges of FBI entrapment; the Bureau's informant may have contributed to the creation or development of the plot. And the airliner plot on the east coast busted in 2003? The confession of Ali Abd al Rahman al-Faqasi al-Ghmadi was to Saudi authorities, and this plot was included among several potential plots al Qaeda might have been considering. Whether or not there was any actual plot afoot is still a question. Cherryvale Mall? The FBI provided fake grenades to a man who had no other weapons, nor money to obtain them, and was encouraged to go forward with the plot by the Bureau's informant. The US Bank Tower plot in Los Angeles? Well, there never really was any actual plot, and intelligence officials downplayed its magnitude after Bush's February, 2009 speech; some even attributed the timing of the president's claim to some political need. (See Froomkin). Perhaps you consider this kind of fearmongering by the administration mere politics, but after the whole debacle leading up to the Iraq War, what kind of credibility should Bush expect? Well, I'm only undermining my own argument if you're writing it for me. The phrase "stop it" comes to mind. What an intriguing statement. Of course, on both occasions in this discussion that you've called Bush a lefty, you've been unable to explain what that means. No rush. Whenever you have the time, though. ____________________ Notes: Petraeus, David. Memorandum. May 10, 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/petraeus_values_051007.pdf Froomkin, Dan. "Bush's Counterterrorism Record: 0 for 1". WashingtonPost.com. December 18, 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/12/18/BL2008121802193.html
Do you have evidence of this administration ever telling the truth about any major matter of controversy involving blame to them? Try to identify an issue involving blame to this administration, in which the facts as subsequently revealed showed this administration had been telling the truth all along. One issue will do. After you have invented a definition of "combat" that includes Maher Arar and similar cases, spare a moment for reflection on the word "effective". What is it that governments are doing, when they establish torture prisons and indefinite detention without charge and so forth? What are they "effective" at, using such means? No one here or in the media has made any such claims. You are supposed to recognize when it becomes obvious that you have been lied to and deceived, and by whom.
Okay Tiassa, I get it. You are impossible to correspond with because you want to parse, obfuscate, etc&etc!!! I now see why lefties claim that righties are stupid, and believe me it doesn't speak well of lefties. This is akin to banging my head against the wall. I am sorry Tiassa. I truly thought you were someone to debate with, but alas the difference between pjdud, ice, and yourself are only in the fact that you post longer. The arguments are the same. Basically, it boils down to the right sucks, it's greedy, has no compassion, and if believes in God doesn't have a shred of realism. Seriously, if someone else chooses to intervene to rebut your post, let them do so. Please report me, so I can be banned!!! Please, the competitor in me will not allow me to stay away from the tug and pull of the board. But the absolute ignorance and denial of reality drives me crazy. You win. All hail communism!!!! All hail government intrusion and expansion!!!! All hail socialism!!!! As though there is a difference between it and communism, and of course, since I am a righty. I could never differentiate the two, so as to be nuanced like marxists (oops, I did it again) All hail the democratic control government, who will decidedly and for the last time, finally put the nails in the coffin of what was a country of rugged individualism. All hail newspeak!!!! I know Tiassa. You think are fighting all government intrusion and expansion, but it has never, ever, ever, occurred that the only time you feel passioned is if a republican is in charge. You can't see anything past your noise otherwise. As for your waiting on how Bush is a lefty. Someone who also believes the same can explain for you. I am done. I am done. I will join the Shrugged crowd, now.
Just stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la la". Works better than commanding others to accept things like as being somehow based in real life. (Bush is lefty?! He hides it well)
