PDA

View Full Version : Ignorance is Bliss



moblsv
05-09-2008, 03:58 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080507/sc_livescience/conservativeshappierthanliberals

Individuals with conservative ideologies are happier than liberal-leaners, and new research pinpoints the reason: Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities.

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman/2008/01/does-smart-equal-liberal.cfm

Not to put too fine a point on it: The smartest kids turned into the most broad-minded and progressive adults. For example, the most intelligent kids turned out 20 years later to be much more tolerant of other races. They were also much more supportive of working mothers, rejecting the notion that pre-school children will suffer without a stay-at-home mother. In general, the sharpest kids came to embrace much less traditional moral values and were much more apt to challenge authority. They were also much less cynical as adults, more trusting that the political system can do good.

Why would native intelligence translate into a more enlightened worldview later on? One obvious possibility is that the smarter kids end up getting a better education; they read more books and newspapers and are exposed to a richer culture of ideas. But the data, reported in the January issue of Psychological Science, donít appear to support this explanation.

Instead, it appears to be something about the intelligent brain itself: Smart people may have a different emotional makeup, a personality that is more open to experience. Or it may be that high IQ at age ten eventually leads to more complex moral reasoning: In short, smart people alone may have the cognitive machinery thatís needed for more flexible analysis of political and moral quandaries.

SKennedy
05-09-2008, 04:09 PM
I'm conservative and blissfuly ignorant, yet have a decent IQ, fairly well educated, am not a racist, and my wife is a career woman and we raised 2 independent thinking children that are grown and well-adjusted adults while both of us worked. Neither of our kids are racist, and they are both doing well. Now, if you consider someone like Deeman you could have a valid point!! (Just kidding)!

Perhaps your summation is too simplistic....and I also disagree with the use and implied meaning of the term "enlightenment."

And I will admit, I just perused your comments and I did not read the articles referenced. Otherwise, how can I stay blissfully ignorant? LOL!

moblsv
05-09-2008, 05:25 PM
Yes, every short snippet on the web seems to be too simplistic. That's why these forums become so divisive. People get overwhelmed by vast quantities of "facts", usually taken out of context to misrepresent the greater truth for political posturing. That's also true of most other forms of media as well.

I prefer to get my info from books, but sometimes I see something on the web and can't help but add my own little jabs to those (who shall remain nameless) for which these would apply.

I have a feeling the type of Conservatives most accurately represented by these "facts" will be the very ones most offended. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

pooltchr
05-09-2008, 06:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: moblsv</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080507/sc_livescience/conservativeshappierthanliberals

Individuals with conservative ideologies are happier than liberal-leaners, and new research pinpoints the reason: Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities.

</div></div>
I can agree that conservatives are happier than liberals in general, I'm not sure I buy into the reasoning.
Conservatives tend to view the world as a place where they can control their own destiny. They see problems as opportunities to overcome. Liberals tend to see all the problems in terms of how people are victims of the system, and their only hope is more government controls. Given those two options, I think it's clear why conservatives would be generally happier. Conservatives believe they are in control, liberals want someone else to be in control.
Steve

Gayle in MD
05-10-2008, 10:23 AM
Hears a book for you friend, which no doubt, none of our friends from the right would care to read, since it has everything to do with how George Bush, et al, lied to the world about his decision to use torture, and how it has damaged not only our reputation in the world, but how it has expanded the ideology of extremist muslims, terrorists, their numbers, and their terrorist acts.

Mr. Sands was among the other two people who testified last tuesday before the House, and this link...

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05092008/profile3.html

will provide the information on his book, Torture Team: Rumsfeld;s Memo And The Betrayal Of American Values along with a video of his appearance on Bill Moyers Journal, at PBS.org.

Amd this link provides you with his testimony

http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=436

As you can see, while this disgusting administration has blamed others, allowing others to be ruined for their part in breaking the law, insisting that it was a bottom up situation, in fact, George Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were at the top of the chain, and therefore, they, and they theri chosen puppets, Justice Lawyers, are responsible for the war crimes committed.

David Koo, Addington, Cheney's legal puppet, and Feith, all at the top of the carnage, and all under subpoena.

It was interesting as I watched Republicans trying to give cause why these investigations, along with people like Mr. Sands should be silenced. there are always some of them that will do their best to cover up for the lies and law breaking committed by George Bush, Dick Cheney, and others in this lawless administration.

As regards your post, The idea that ignorance is bliss, being cause for the supposed happy nature of Conservatives, couldn't be more obvious when one considers that every major issue which is pressing against American Ideals, our constitution, our laws and agreements, survival of the planet, and even a health care program that allows for all Americans to live and survive catestrophic illnesses, whatever they may be, instead of just the rich, and people like Dick Cheney, who would surely be dead right now if not for the fact that he, along with two million other federal employees have excellent health care coverage, which the rest of us pay for, and cannot be turned away for treatment, as the rest of us surely can.

While some here dismiss the entire issue with words like socialism, I find that very reaction to be yet another example of how the right prefers to brand and lable our pressing problems with their ridiculous misuse of terms, rather than face them, and solve them, and with niave' suggestions such as, competition in the health care industry is all we need, in order to have the best health care,... and that a universal health care insurance policy, which would cover all Americans, instead of their very survival being left to the whims of insurance companies which operate for the sole purpose of profit, making the decisions on who may live, and who must die, by being refused their operations, and medical care, by insurance companies, whose only aim or goal is profit.

The link I have provided will also give you a link to the California Nurses Association, which is fighting for Universal Health Care, and who were able to stand against Arnold Swartznegger and win the battle against his efforts to remove standards for how many patients each nurse could be responsible for, at a time, by removing the nurse to patient ratios which had been required before he took office.

As you say, without doing the necessary reading to search for the truth, Americans cannot possibly begin to stay abreast of the issues which we face at this time, and on this site, atleast, books written by experts are ignorantly condemned, painted as just some person looking to make a profit on a book, while those same kinds of righties think that Insurance Companies, which spend thirty cents on every dollar they charge their subscribers on advertising, and such, are the ones who shouold have the say in who lives, and who dies.

Apparently, these same righties do not grasp the meaning of catastrophic illness, nor do they realize that they themselves are at risk of losing everything, including their lives, in a country where paying out several thousands of dollars a month, does not protect one from being dumped by their health care provider if saving your life does not provide their stock holders with expected dividends.

Ignorance, is definately bliss, and all one must do to prove that is read the opinions from the right about universal health care, torture as an American policy, illegal foreign occupations which further increase and insight the terrorist population, and their complete lack of understanding of the global warming issue.

Gayle in Md.




May 9, 2008

In his new book, TORTURE TEAM: RUMSFELD'S MEMO AND THE BETRAYAL OF AMERICAN VALUES, Philippe Sands draws on official documents and interviews with key players to explain how the U.S. Military went from interrogations strictly regulated by the U.S. ARMY FIELD MANUAL 34-52 to enhanced interrogations that included sleep deprivation, nudity, stress positions, and water boarding.
As Sands explains in an interview with Scott Horton in THE NEW REPUBLIC:


When the administration released the December 2002 and other memos, it told a story that essentially said this: The new interrogation techniques came from the bottom up and had nothing to do with policy decisions driven from the top. I wanted to explore the truth of that account, by trying to talk to as many of the people involved in the decision as I could.
The narrative begins December 2, 2002, the day Donald Rumsfeld signed a memo from his legal counsel, William J. "Jim" Haynes. The memo, now referred to as "The Haynes Memo", recommended blanket approval for 15 of 18 new interrogation techniques to be used in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility while not rejecting the others.

&gt;&gt;View the Haynes Memo (pdf).

The new rules established three new categories for uncooperative detainees. Category I allowed yelling and deception; Category II required additional permission from higher up the chain of command and allowed twelve new sensory-depravation and humiliation techniques. These included stress positions, falsified documents, isolation, twenty-four hour interrogations, removal of clothing, and the use of individual phobias, such as fear of dogs. The memo only offered blanket approval for one technique in Category III, reserved for the most uncooperative detainees: "mild, non-injurious physical contact." The other techniques, which the memo did not approve or condemn, included convincing the detainee that death or painful consequences were imminent for his family, exposure to cold weather and water, and water-boarding.

Sands wanted to find out where these new techniques came from. Who requested them and why? To reconstruct the process that wrought a fundamental change in U.S. interrogation and detainee policy, Sands conducted hundreds of hours of interviews with key players in the military and the Bush Administration. Sands told his conclussion to Scott Horton:


I have no doubt about the early, close, and active involvement of the upper echelons of the administration in the decision to request, approve and then use harsh techniques of interrogation on "Detainee 063," Mohammed Al Qahtani. The story that emerged from the interviews was clear and it was consistent (plus, I had the opportunity to put my findings to Jim Haynes, who was the final piece of the jigsaw). The administration's 'bottom-up' narrative--as spun by Mr. Haynes and others--is false, inaccurate, and misleading, and I believe it was knowingly intended to be so.

Philippe Sands
Philippe Sands is an international lawyer and a Professor of Law and Director of the Centre on International Courts and Tribunals in the Faculty, and a key member of staff in the Centre for Law and the Environment at the University College of London. As a lawyer he has litigated extensively before the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, and the European Court of Justice. He frequently advises governments, international organisations, NGOs and the private sector on aspects of international law. In 2003 he was appointed a Queen's Counsel.
Sands has written numerous books on international law and politics,including LAWLESS WORLD: AMERICA AND BREAKING OF GLOBAL RULES, and most recently, TORTURE TEAM: CRUELTY, DECEPTION AND THE COMPROMISE OF LAW.

Published May 9, 2008.

Gayle in MD
05-10-2008, 10:45 AM
Liberals see problems as problems, and believe that they can be solved. Liberals do not expect Government to take care of them, they just believe that Government should not burry them, to benefit the corporations, the wealthy, and the thieves who do everything they can to exploit them.

If you think you're in control of what happens to you in your life, you're fooling yourself. One severe illness could wipe you out. Dick Cheney wouldn't be alive right now, if he were not covered by the federal health insurance program that the rest of us pay for.

Conservative deny inequalities, deny that corporations ahve any responsibility to consummers for what they do, and deny that they are just as vulnerable to catastrophy, health or nature, as the next guy. IOW, conservatives think that somehow if faced with the same catastrophies that other face, they would not be as vulnerable, that they are somehow supperior to the average man on the street, who would face ruin if his home was swept out into the sea, or if his health provider dumped him because he needed a liver, or heart transplant to survive.

Conservative are without conscience, as regards their elitist attitudes, and their imagined protection from all the things that can happen to anyone, at anytime, and ruin their lives, hence, they must frame such unfortunate people as lazy, on the take, dumb, or somehow beneath their own supperior position in life, which in actuality, provides them no magic solutions, or protections from those same disasters.

Conservatives are so out of touch, they actually vote against their own best self interests, and the best interests of the country, and when their votes later prove to have been cause for disasterous incompetence and consequences, they simply deny that any of it happened at all.

Ignorance is bliss...but it can be cured by people who do not suspend their critical judgement and choose instead to "THINK" and study, instead of being blindly led, and living in denial. It is easy to be happy when you live your life believing that all the ddisasters which befall others, can't happen to you, because you're so smart, and you're so independent, and you're to omnipitant, that such things cannot happen to you. conservatives feel better when they can condemn all those who are poor and hungry, ill and financially challenged, oppressed and exploited, as being somehow different from themselves, and therefore deserving of their plight.

Liberals, instead, think in terms of principles, and the principles work. Whether you believe in them or not, has nothing to do with the fact that they work. Hence, they know that what is hidden and lied about, cannot be correct, and what is denied, after having been proven, over and over again, by experts, cannot be a myth, and what is as wrong as torture, can never be right. And that lies that kill, are much worse, than lies to are told to prevent hurting others whom they love.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
05-10-2008, 01:42 PM
Social Security worked for a while, just like a pyramid scheme...the first ones in benefit, and the last ones in pay for the first ones. GOOD PLAN!

Socialised medecine works so well in Canada that the ones who can afford to, come down to the US because of the better health care system we have. The ones without the money are stuck in Canada and have to deal with a very broken system. GOOD PLAN!

Welfare was designed to help those in need. But way too many figured out that if they didn't work, they could just sit around and get their monthly check. And the more dependents they have, the bigger the check. A find tradition that is being passed down from generation to generation. GOOD PLAN!

Every time the government comes up with a new program to "help" Americans, it ends up building a bigger government, which does nothing but take from some Americans, pocket most of it, and give out some to those they think will vote to keep them in office. Unfortunately, this seems to be working, so I suppose that really IS a good plan.

Steve

Bobbyrx
05-10-2008, 10:58 PM
Sands also wrote "LAWLESS WORLD: AMERICA AND BREAKING OF GLOBAL RULES" so it's obvious that HE has no agenda.........

Gayle in MD
05-11-2008, 06:41 PM
Yeah, Government, bad bad bad, Conservatives, good good good.

I don't suppose you have any intention of collecting your social security, right?

What a total joke!

pooltchr
05-12-2008, 04:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yeah, Government, bad bad bad, Conservatives, good good good.

I don't suppose you have any intention of collecting your social security, right?

What a total joke!

</div></div>
Since the government has been collecting money from me ever since I began working, if it's still available when I reach retirement, I wouldn't mind getting some of it back. The difference is that I am not foolish enough to hang my hopes for retirement income on a government program that has been mismanaged for years.
Steve

Gayle in MD
05-12-2008, 07:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Welfare was designed to help those in need. But way too many figured out that if they didn't work, they could just sit around and get their monthly check. </div></div>

Oh, OK, then, lets just abandon all those in desperate need, including children, as Republicans would have it, and continue to spend almost half of our expenditures on bombs. Surely, that would make for a far better country, and a far better world! At the very least, we'd have the opportunity to to be further exploited, as taxpayers, by all the profiteering Corporate thieves, and as long as Republicans are in office, we can continue to expand the Federal Government, spend money we don't have, cut taxes and borrow money to pay for all of it, and drive the country into the pit, as Republicans ALWAYS do promising lower taxes, while driving up exhorbitant debts.

Not all people who are on welfare, are on the take, and not all look to it as their only plan for their senior years, but since you are so adamently against socialism, one would think you'd avoid taking part.

Conservatives are always for throwing out everything that actually does some good for our citizens, rather than working to improve it. Liberals look at the whole picture, hence, Albert Einstein, was a Liberal Democrat.

Gayle in Md.

LWW
05-12-2008, 07:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Welfare was designed to help those in need. But way too many figured out that if they didn't work, they could just sit around and get their monthly check. </div></div>

Oh, OK, then, lets just abandon all those in desperate need, including children, as Republicans would have it,

Gayle in Md. </div></div>
Gayle, that's a lie right off the bat and you know it ... you just don't care.


Bush has raised social spending during his 8 years and the next POTUS will also, all in an effort to pimp people for votes.

We have a welfare system that is unsustainable now ... and when it blows it will be the fault of the people for electing idjit after idjit.

LWW

sack316
05-12-2008, 10:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Oh, OK, then, lets just abandon all those in desperate need, including children... </div></div>

That's an oversimplified reassurance statement aimed at convincing a reader that they seek the same agenda, or think the same way, as the question would lead them to believe. If you asked anyone here "Should we as a country help our fellow Americans in desperate need?" I don't think you'd get a single response of "no" from anybody here. Adding the word "children" in it was a nice touch. And if that's just the way it was, then that would be great. But an actual question that would have some merit to it would be something like "Should we keep a system in place that allows both those in need AND those who simply take advantage of a welfare system to go on 'as is' unchecked?" and you'd get some varied responses. Saying anybody wants to abandon everyone in need is as rediculous as someone else saying that the entire system is full of nothing but mooches taking advantage of our help.

To relate it to one of your issues, it's no different than the difference in a radical feminists groups' (not you per say) questionaire including "Do you feel that women should be able to play sports if they want to?" Well who's gonna say no to that? A question sheet worded like that would probably score me as a 100% feminist. But if you asked "If not enough women are playing sports, should mens' teams be eliminated so athletics on a campus can be evenly split between sexes?" then you've got a different horse running.

I think everyone would be willing to help those in true need. I also think everyone would not want freeloaders living off their hard work. The welfare system is a good thing, it's just a good thing that needs some tweaking and more checking... and to be put into better practice towards it's actual purpose. It's not Sack or anyone on the right that would ever be the one to do away with such a system. Those that abuse it and suck it dry would eliminate it long before anyone else had a chance to even think about it.

Sack

p.s. also, don't ya realize that those that do abuse it, stretch it so thin that those who really are in dire need have LESS help available to them? I would have actually thought in many ways you'd be in agreement with "the other side"... perhaps not for the same reasons, but because if done correctly those that are impoverished could get enough help to get themselves out of "the system". That, afterall, is the point anyway isn't it?

Deeman3
05-12-2008, 12:30 PM
Sack,

It is not only outright abuse but the entitlement aura we have set up around social programs. At THE CASINO, exit 22, a principal told me that over 80% of the checks they cash are governemnt checks, social security or welfare money. Now, it may not be appropriate to say how a retiree who may or may not have contributed to their retirement spends the money we give tham but when the receipents of general welfare funds use these to gamble, then declare they don't have money for gas and food but still sport hand free cell phones, designer clothes and expensive cars, it might chafe on those who do pay taxes.

I know you can't make people be responsible for themselves anymore. And to just mention that there may be a role for oversight on these progrmas brings screams of we are spending just as much on bombs (not true) or that we simply won't regognise that these people "deserve" all the trappings of success, despite poor choices, year after year after year...

There are places and programs that do good. There is a need beyond what trhe private sector can do. The difference is that if you question any of these spending progrmas or ask for some simple common sense management, you are branded a right wing, Republican who wants everyone to starve and divert the discussion to military waste, which does exist.

That is the reason we wil never have an open and honest discussion in this country that will help the ones who need it. It's much easier to try to make the other side look evil than to work on solutions, which are now, we will throw more oney at the problem. Look how much good that has done.

eg8r
05-12-2008, 12:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's an oversimplified reassurance statement aimed at convincing a reader that they seek the same agenda, or think the same way, as the question would lead them to believe. If you asked anyone here "Should we as a country help our fellow Americans in desperate need?" I don't think you'd get a single response of "no" from anybody here. Adding the word "children" in it was a nice touch. And if that's just the way it was, then that would be great. But an actual question that would have some merit to it would be something like "Should we keep a system in place that allows both those in need AND those who simply take advantage of a welfare system to go on 'as is' unchecked?" and you'd get some varied responses. Saying anybody wants to abandon everyone in need is as rediculous as someone else saying that the entire system is full of nothing but mooches taking advantage of our help.</div></div>Hello Sack, I like the way you think and I completely agree with the quote above. You are a good person and I hate to see you just "spinning your wheels" but you are wasting your time trying to be reasonable and rational with Gayle.

eg8r

Deeman3
05-12-2008, 02:09 PM
Right now, they are correctly separating children in Texas from parents who may not be taking care of them and allowing some to be abused. Those who can be identified with the abuse of these children should be punished.

In downtown Chicago, NY and Boston, hundreds of minor girls are getting pregnant every day by older boyfriends, family members, teachers, etc. Aside from providing free abortions for them, the left does not care one hoot about prosecuting these crimes. To empty out one of the major projects, of these children, in these cities would be tantmount to a Nazi concentration camp and a trampling of their "rights". It's all sad but certainly a double standard. I say prosecute them all.

sack316
05-12-2008, 02:58 PM
Thanks eg8r for your compliment... was simply stating my thought on the matter, some will agree and some will not, as is their right. I do feel, however, that my thought and appraoch to most topics (such as this one) is just a common sense approach and nothing special. Making things work doesn't take miracles and special complicated plans... generally common sense will suffice for 99% of the ills we see (and I freely admit, that goes both ways on either side of the political fence).

Deeman, you know I see the same things you mentioned about the casino. I've even broached that topic in other threads... guess it's just one of those things that only those of us that get to see how rampant it is first hand tend to believe.

Also, I saw a snippet today about a father that was jailed for contributing to the delinquency of a minor because his daughter hadn't passed her GED exam. At first I was kind of like "what the heck?", but then in thinking about it, it's really not such a bad idea. I like that some degree of accountability was actually placed on a parent. Now this particular case, I don't exactly think it was warranted (the girl actually lived with her mother, and is currently a legal adult, etc. for other reasons it may not be justified in this particular scenario). But the IDEA of it sounds pretty good. One of those "if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem" approaches to it.

Sack

Gayle in MD
05-12-2008, 07:39 PM
Sack,
I agree with each of your poionts regarding welfare. Some here define it as just another way for the government to take their money and give it away to someone else. Some here bash it non stop, and color it as just socialism, without ever noting any of the advantages it provides to our society, overall.

I find it tiring listening to the same people who are going to collect their benefits just like the rest of us, do nothing but bash it non stop, and dismiss it as just socialism, when they themselves are going to take advantage of it.

That gets old.

As I stated, nothing is perfect, but problems in any government program can be improved, and it isn't that welfare can't work, or is just a Democratic program of socialism, it is the politicians dipping into it, over the years, which have brough about the shortfalls. If handled correctly, it can work quite well. Defense spending, and all the corruption that goes with it, is what is running our country into the pit. You can't cut taxes, spend like drunken sailors, waste money and allow corruption, and profiteering to get totally out of hand, and then expect to get out of it without generating more money, usually through higher taxes.

This brings us back to Bush one, who had to back off his "No NEW TAXES, read my lips, campaign promises. Reagan left this country in a mess. Cutting taxes is not the end all that the right seems to think it is, anymore than solving everything, including greed and corruption, through neglecting all the problems, and leaving everything to the free market for correction. People have been swindled, and the Republican ideal of cutting taxes, and growing government, and launching wars, borrowing to pay for all of it, has been economically disasterous. Removing all regulations, and looking the other way while corporations gouge the public, and giving them tax breaks, while they keep all their profits and jobs overseas, is a huge part of the problem.

Some people seem to think that the economic challenges which we are facing are all about what they refer to as socialism. It isn't that narrow, and it isn't even about welfare, or SS, it's about corruption at the highest levels of government, cronyism, and exhorbitant defense spending, waste and corruption, along with borrowing to pay for all of it, particularly when there is no long term benefit coming back.

Pure incompetence and corruption, IMO, and it is the Republican legacy of the Bush administration. It is so pervasive, that I cannot understand how any Republicans can defend it.

Eighty one percent of us see it for what it is, and it is surely the wrong direction.

Gayle in MD
05-12-2008, 08:44 PM
Military waste does not exist? Liberals don't care about abused children? How do you arrive at those conclusions?

Nine billion dollars missing, and that doesn't represent waste? That isn't even all of it, either, and defense spending does represent nearly half our expenditures.

Here are few interesting quotes about war....


General Colin Powell (1991) when asked his assessment of Iraqi military and civilian casualties: "That's not really a number I'm terribly interested in."

Ellen Key: "Everything, everything in war is barbaric... But the worst barbarity of war is that it forces men collectively to commit acts against which individually they would revolt with their whole being."

George W. Bush's mother, Barbara, (ABC/Good Morning America, 18 March 2003): "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many, what day it's gonna happen? It's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

George Washington: "Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty."



Anatole France, pseudonym for Jacques Anatole Thibault (1844-1924): "A people living under the perpetual menace of war and invasion is very easy to govern. It demands no social reforms. It does not haggle over expenditures for armaments and military equipment. It pays without discussion, it ruins itself, and that is an excellent thing for the syndicates of financiers and manufacturers for whom patriotic terrors are an abundant source of gain."

Hermann Goering: "Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

USA President Dwight D Eisenhower: "Every warship, every tank, and every military aircraft built is in the final sense a theft from those who are hungry and are not fed, and those who are naked, and are not clothed."

Albert Einstein: "He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake; science for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilisation should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable an ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

<span style="color: #000066">In spite of the fact that there are still some right wing pundits who will defend this atrocity, the occupation of Iraq, with all its unfortunate consequences, the fact is that most Americans believe that it was a mistake, and think that it has hurt our country, and even most left over from REagans administration, say that it was the worst foreign policy decision EVER. </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> know you can't make people be responsible for themselves anymore. And to just mention that there may be a role for oversight on these progrmas brings screams of we are spending just as much on bombs (not true) or that we simply won't regognise that these people "deserve" all the trappings of success, despite poor choices, year after year after year...
</div></div>

I surely do not think that, and, as I said, we do in fact spend nearly half our expenditures on defense spending. I think that framing all democrats, or liberals, as people who don't care about abused children, is unfair, and also, we might do well to understand that this war in Iraq has brought us nothing but grief and debt, and for what advantage to America? SAving Iraq was not on my mind after al Qaeda killed three thousand Americans, and occupying Iraq, has aided bin Laden's cause, destablized the Middle East, and contributed to our economic woes.

Yes, I'd have much preferred the many billions upon billions we wasted in Iraq, had gone to helping the poor and hungry children in America, or improving our energy dependence issues, strengthening our alliances, and getting bin Laden. That said, I am certainly not for giving lazy people a free ride. I am against going into debt for a war that was a mistake, throwing more good money after bad, and losing more American soldiers, to continue a policy that has exacerbated all those problems, and helped those who would do us evil. WE have our own problems to solve. Let the Iraqis solve theirs. It was absurd to think that this would work, in the first place.

As for oversight, that is exactly what we had none of while Republicans held the majority. They fought it for six years. I have written post after post crying out for oversight. We had none, until the Democrats had the power to set the agenda.

The corporate corruption and profiteering that has been going on in Iraq has been thoroughly documented. The harm done to our troops because of it, also has been thoroughly documented. The abuse of our soldiers, corruption among the Republican cronies, those corporate war profiteers, along with republican refusals to hold investigations into the waste and corruption, blocking of those investigations, are all reasons why I am against the Republican performance, and agenda.

How can anyone justify Bush cutting taxes, prosecuting an occupation of a foreign country, failing to give our troops decent equipment, and borrowing the money to pay for all of it, while leaving the debt to our children and grand children? What kind of responsibility is that?

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
05-13-2008, 07:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Military waste does not exist? Liberals don't care about abused children? How do you arrive at those conclusions? <span style="color: #CC0000">

You misread my post, I said military waste DOES exist. Liberals care about high profile cases where they can score political points, the private sector, which we all know has very little liberal support, is the only group that has shown consistent long term efforts to really help those children. </span>

Nine billion dollars missing, and that doesn't represent waste? That isn't even all of it, either, and defense spending does represent nearly half our expenditures.

<span style="color: #CC0000"> Again, I have said there is military waste just not half our budget as you claim.</span>

Here are few interesting quotes about war....



As for oversight, that is exactly what we had none of while Republicans held the majority. They fought it for six years. I have written post after post crying out for oversight. We had none, until the Democrats had the power to set the agenda.

<span style="color: #CC0000"> More to the point, we have had no real oversight furing any recnet administration.</span>

The corporate corruption and profiteering that has been going on in Iraq has been thoroughly documented. The harm done to our troops because of it, also has been thoroughly documented. The abuse of our soldiers, corruption among the Republican cronies, those corporate war profiteers, along with republican refusals to hold investigations into the waste and corruption, blocking of those investigations, are all reasons why I am against the Republican performance, and agenda.

How can anyone justify Bush cutting taxes, prosecuting an occupation of a foreign country, failing to give our troops decent equipment, and borrowing the money to pay for all of it, while leaving the debt to our children and grand children? What kind of responsibility is that?

<span style="color: #CC0000">These are good points and exactly why I am so disappointed in the present administration and wish there were candidates that would better. So far, I only hear fluff on the issues and promises to give more to the masses, no plan to clean up the waste. </span>

</div></div>

eg8r
05-13-2008, 07:23 AM
You are stepping on shaky ground there with Q. If you keep saying that he will post another thread about the overpopulation of US jails.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
05-13-2008, 01:05 PM
Sorry, Deeman, you are quite right, I did misread the sentence about military waste, which has, btw, been colossal during this occupation in Iraq.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Liberals care about high profile cases where they can score political points, <span style="color: #000066">Only liberals care about political points? </span> the private sector, which we all know has very little liberal support, is the only group that has shown consistent long term efforts to really help those children. <span style="color: #000066">I don't know which children you are speaking of, nor whom it is that you consider the private sector, but I do know there are many liberals who care about children. </span>

</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, I have said there is military waste just not half our budget as you claim.
</div></div>

I didn't say half, I said nearly half, and that is very close. I believe the pertentile was around 47%.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">More to the point, we have had no real oversight furing any recnet administration.

</div></div>

Well, I was refering to the difference between the Republican majority, and the present Democratic majority, which, I have been watching as they have provided good oversight since they took over the various investigative committees, particularly as regards the safety of our troops, and the waste in Iraq, and the law breaking of this administration.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These are good points and exactly why I am so disappointed in the present administration and wish there were candidates that would better. So far, I only hear fluff on the issues and promises to give more to the masses, no plan to clean up the waste.

</div></div>

I agree Deeman, and I have been very disappointed that none of them have referred to any strengthening of efforts to eliminate waste, nor have I hear any of them promise to end, or not follow, Bush's skewing of the open nature of the Esecutive offices. Using signing statements, for example, to get around congressional law. I have not heard any of them promise not to follow suit. That is of great concern to me since the Bush administration has been the most secretive of any, and because he has re-written the definitions of the law, in order to get around it. I fear what that has done to our deomcratic standards.

Gayle in Md.

SKennedy
05-16-2008, 02:53 PM
On SS......You'll never get anywhere near what you paid into it. That's the difference between government vs private oversight.

Medical care......Don't know about your part of the country, but here we have hospitals that do not turn away indigents. All get necessary medical care. Yes, tax payers pay for it. I'm sure there are private hospitals that refuse treatment, but even they can't refuse to help if it is an immediate life-threatening emergency. They may patch you up and then send you out the door to the local county or public hospital for further treatment.

Global warming.....I may be wrong about my opinion on global warming, but those claiming man has created global warming have not proven it. I am not a climatologist, but neither are many who are hollering about global warming. In fact, most of them that I read about indicate they do not believe man is culpable or they feel that the jury is still out.

I did read an article this morning that placed additional blame on overweight people for global warming. It takes more fuel to transport their fat butts around and it takes more fuel to handle and transport all the food they eat! Seriously! I am not making this stuff up. They did not really advocate that we start killing off fat people at the moment, but I'm sure mandatory measurements of percent body fat for all people is right around the corner. Of course there are those who say being fat is purely genetics. Could be. So, we can start killing fat people and end up saving the planet from global warming by removing the gene for "fatitude!" And who said Hitler was dead?

SKennedy
05-16-2008, 02:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SKennedy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I did read an article this morning that placed additional blame on overweight people for global warming. It takes more fuel to transport their fat butts around and it takes more fuel to handle and transport all the food they eat! Seriously! I am not making this stuff up. They did not really advocate that we start killing off fat people at the moment, but I'm sure mandatory measurements of percent body fat for all people is right around the corner. Of course there are those who say being fat is purely genetics. Could be. So, we can start killing fat people and end up saving the planet from global warming by removing the gene for "fatitude!" And who said Hitler was dead? </div></div>

P.S. After all the fat people are nixed, they'll want to get rid of the stupid, blissful Republicans who are taking up valuable space and utilizing precious resources for their worthless existence! This will allow more room and air for the "enlightened" ones!

wolfdancer
05-17-2008, 12:48 AM
you may not believe in global warming...and think like Ed...well, it's the sun causing it; doesn't the loony left know that?
(actually we thought it was all the hot air emanating from 1600 Penn. Ave)
The way I figure it is...easiest thing to do is to deny it, and think Al Gore made it up...
next easiest thing to do, is to point to the sun.....and nothing we can do about the sun....
either of the above fits in with the party line, and you won't feel guilty about driving your SUV to the corner store for cigarettes.

Or you could wonder why the sun picked now, when things were going so well with the war and the economy... to heat up the planet? It's been up there over 6 thousand years and why now?
OR you could type in for a google search...."what causes global warming?".....
Ed and what's his name...can disprove all those claims though...
so just go back to the first choice....get in your SUV and pick up a six pack of Balcones Fault Bat's Breath Bock.....(it's illegal to sell that **** up north, without a permit from the health dep't.))

Sid_Vicious
05-17-2008, 01:58 AM
Total bullish!t! You can call it a higher IQ if you wish, but it all, inho is merely a smothered intelligence, and stupid as stupid "is." Life gathers everyone to conclude the absolute, and education, as strange as it may sound, quashes that honesty from oneself. PHD degrees have so little imagination left, ruled by status quo, that this country of so called smart beings, has become ignorant. Google ignorant...sid

sack316
05-17-2008, 02:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Or you could wonder why the sun picked now, when things were going so well with the war and the economy... to heat up the planet? It's been up there over 6 thousand years and why now?

</div></div>

So WE caused global warming via our own actions, BUT at the same time it picked NOW to start during this time in history (I presume to lay blame on certain doorsteps), as you seem to be saying? Now I can't say for certain if this phenomenon is caused by us or naturally, and each of us can pick and choose whoevers reports and studies we choose to believe... but if we are indeed the cause of GW, then wouldn't the problem itself have begun (the cause, not the event) during the industrial revolution rather than "now"?

Sack

Gayle in MD
05-17-2008, 08:58 AM
What I find missing in so many of these kinds of calculations it that they never factor in for the conditions prevailing.

For example, IMO, nothing can replace having a loving, devoted mother who choice it is to stay home with her children, and places the experience of Motherhood, above all else among her many choices in her life.

OTOH, having a resentful mother who stays home to raise her children, merely because she thinks she ought to do so, wouldn't necessarily produce the same results, probably more likely, would not.

A happiliy married couple, for example, will convey the positive side of married life, and their children will have more tools, and a better example of the positive side of being married, while two miserable people would probably do their children a service to part, and find other partners.

The one thing that we can always be assured of is that divorce will have some negative effects on children. Some will have the opportunity to see that their divorced parents, while they could not stay together, still loved them, and shared in their up-bringing, maintaining contact, and a commitment to their best interests, and aiming to stay in communication, above all else, in order to fulfill their responsibilities as parents, putting their love for their children above their differences, while others, only expose their children to the darker, more petty and selfish version of parenthood.

I believe that parents who enjoy and seek out learning experiences, enjoy their lives, enjoy using their minds, and most of all enjoy the process of raising their children, provide the best opportunity for children to learn, and to use their emotions and intellect to the best advantage, expanding both, and learning the best approaches to life.

All in all, and beyond any other statements I previously made, I have never agreed that a Mother who is distracted from motherhood, by various duties to a job away from home, can provide the same quality of mothering that a mother who is always engaged on a day to day basis, by her own choice, can provide.

Then we have to also understand that some children come into this world, regardless of their unique circumstances, chock full of desire for learning, and they excell intellectually, but not always emotionally. Contrary to that scenario, the opposite is also true, that one can come into the world with a very loving nature, centered and emotionally well adjusted, and live a more successful life than their intellectually brilliant counterparts.

When measuring intellect, one cannot overlook that value of both emotional growth, and intellectual growth, both of which determine the measure of ones success, fulfillment, and the eventual knowledge, and self-awareness which lay the groundwork for a successful, and happy life. A high intellectual score isn't worth much if one is void of an apptitude for happiness, and self awareness, since all three parts of our emotional intellect must be engaged, the parent, the child and the adult, in order that we make good choices for ourselves, and hence, live a happy and successful life. Success and happiness, and intellectual success, mean different things to different people, and being a happy, well adjusted adult, isn't always about intellectual ability, alone.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

LWW
05-17-2008, 12:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you may not believe in global warming...and think like Ed...well, it's the sun causing it; doesn't the loony left know that?
(actually we thought it was all the hot air emanating from 1600 Penn. Ave)</div></div>
That would certainly explain why it ended in 1999.

LWW

wolfdancer
05-17-2008, 01:17 PM
"Human activities are creating excess greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and lead to global warming."
That works for me...while there are plenty of sites that offer causality...this one makes sense to me...but then I am a Democrat...
GW (http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/f101.asp)
There's even another claiming that air traffic adds 3.5 percent to
the problem.
Like you, I am not an expert...but there are observable phenomena taking place...and just because it hasn't been "proved nor disproved"...I think we should try to err on the side of caution.
(the theory has been disproved to Ed though)
Folks thought the earth was flat for a long time, also thought it was the center of the solar system. Recently some even believed lww had a functional brain.
All these theories have been disproved...who knows maybe even your theory that it's all BS might even be wrong?
As to your industrial revolution idea...how many SUVs were on the road then???

IMO...we added to the causes, but it's too late to do anything about it......

wolfdancer
05-17-2008, 01:18 PM
If ignorance is bliss....then lww must be one happy guy!!!

sack316
05-17-2008, 07:12 PM
Well it wasn't my theory that it's all BS, I don't actually think I said that anywhere. I'm fairly certain I've maintained an "I don't really know" stance all along. While I personally don't completely buy into it as it has been put out there, I have never discounted the possibility that it is as you would believe, either. Actually I think we should try to take care of our planet better regardless of GW, OZone depletion, acid rain, or whatever else anyone can come up with... bottom line is we should take care of our home even if there were no consequences to our actions.

As far as my industrial revolution idea... I would venture a guess that there were no SUV's on the road then. And if SUV's were the cause then even I could come up with a simple solution! But, whether you know it or not, your belief in what is happening is based on the levels of CO2 that gets released into the atmosphere. A much higher than natural level of CO2 being released would have began when roughly? Again I'd venture a guess that it would have been as industry and manufacturing developed into "modern" methods. Which, in turn, would have been the catalyst for exactly the theories that you agree with. But perhaps you were too busy jumping to disagree with a righty to see that what I said actually grants credit to what you believe.

As to the rest of your post I didn't address... he he, Ok I'll admit I liked it and got a nice chuckle at the funny parts /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

eg8r
05-19-2008, 07:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The way I figure it is...easiest thing to do is to deny it, and think Al Gore made it up...
next easiest thing to do, is to point to the sun.....and nothing we can do about the sun....
either of the above fits in with the party line, and you won't feel guilty about driving your SUV to the corner store for cigarettes.</div></div> Yes, the way you figure it is to throw out all common sense and wing it. I wish I had an SUV but I refuse to pay for the gas. Instead, I sent my hard earned money to Japan to get a couple of those high mileage imports. It is funny that you associate those with differing views than yours to be abusers, lol, I am sure you make your queen sheep proud.

eg8r

eg8r
05-19-2008, 07:56 PM
Sack, no sense in questioning their ridiculous logic. They have never proven that humans are the cause of global warming and there is insurmoutable evidence that nature has run through these cycles for centuries without any blame on the cavemen. Wolf does not have an original thought and is simply here to argue.

eg8r

eg8r
05-19-2008, 07:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As far as my industrial revolution idea... I would venture a guess that there were no SUV's on the road then. And if SUV's were the cause then even I could come up with a simple solution! </div></div>Sack, if wolf was foolish enough to actually think SUVs were part of the cause then he would be on this board denouncing Gore and his jet setting ways but he choses to be silent.

eg8r

sack316
05-20-2008, 12:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As far as my industrial revolution idea... I would venture a guess that there were no SUV's on the road then. And if SUV's were the cause then even I could come up with a simple solution! </div></div>Sack, if wolf was foolish enough to actually think SUVs were part of the cause then he would be on this board denouncing Gore and his jet setting ways but he choses to be silent.

eg8r </div></div>

I always thought it would be quite humorous to be at one of the Gore seminars, or speeches, or lectures, or whatever you wanna call it... and just raise my hand. Once finally called upon for my question, I would simply ask "How did you get here today?" (I do realize that question could be taken a few different ways, I'd still be interested in the answer to any of the forms of it though /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif )

OK, and I'll go ahead and respond to a future response to that: yes I'm sure he can and has purchased his credits to "erase" his footprints... so it's as if it never happened. Ever. Alternate reply: So he can buy his way out of trouble, i.e. throw money at the problem to make it go away... I thought that was a republican thing to do?

Sack

eb_in_nc
05-20-2008, 06:58 AM
I always thought it would be quite humorous to be at one of the Gore seminars, or speeches, or lectures, or whatever you wanna call it... and just raise my hand. Once finally called upon for my question, I would simply ask "How did you get here today?"

<span style="color: #FF0000">Hot air being one form of travel, I would think Gore would have the advantage on this sort of technology..</span>

Deeman3
05-20-2008, 07:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sands also wrote "LAWLESS WORLD: AMERICA AND BREAKING OF GLOBAL RULES" so it's obvious that HE has no agenda......... </div></div>

Philippi was thrown out of the Sands family in the early 1960's for excessive liberism and cow-towing to the United Nations. His family had moved from Scotland to England in the 1850's where they bought land in Scotland and starved out the locals. Bobby Sands, who later died of a hunger strike was a first cousin. He has always hated Americans and Catholics in particular.

eb_in_nc
05-20-2008, 08:32 AM
The truth about Global Warming, 31,000 scientists reject the theory.

Global warming truth (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734)

cheesemouse
05-20-2008, 09:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eb_in_nc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The truth about Global Warming, 31,000 scientists reject the theory.

Global warming truth (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734) </div></div>

Here, if you really want to immerse yourself in the debate and see both sides you can spend the next few years of your life on this site alone....have a ball if you really care:)

http://climatedebatedaily.com/

eb_in_nc
05-20-2008, 09:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cheesemouse</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eb_in_nc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The truth about Global Warming, 31,000 scientists reject the theory.

Global warming truth (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734) </div></div>

Here, if you really want to immerse yourself in the debate and see both sides you can spend the next few years of your life on this site alone....have a ball if you really care:)

http://climatedebatedaily.com/ </div></div>

Don't really want to immerse myself in the debate, but it gets tiring to hear people speak of it like they are experts on the topic (Al Gore included).

Let the experts debate the subject and all of us arm chair meteorologists can sit back and make our own judgments.

pooltchr
05-20-2008, 06:04 PM
It's no longer politically correct to refer to Global Warming, since facts indicate the world may actually be cooling down. We must refer to it as "Climate Change" so regardless of what is happening, we will be right!
Steve

Chopstick
05-21-2008, 02:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's no longer politically correct to refer to Global Warming, since facts indicate the world may actually be cooling down. We must refer to it as "Climate Change" so regardless of what is happening, we will be right!
Steve </div></div>

So, "they" want me to be concerned about "Climate Change" now. Isn't this the same bunch of guys that used to ignite nuclear weapons in the open atmosphere?

wolfdancer
05-24-2008, 01:53 PM
Ed, If our C02 and other emissions are not part of the problem....then why did we ban freon?
It's obvious that we didn't have SUVs at the onset of the industrial revolution...."why didn't GW show up at the start?" Well maybe it took this long for those gases to concentrate in the ozone layer??????
"SUVs" I use just for effect.
Now since I have no expertise in this area....I rely on what experts write.....and there are differing opinions amongst these experts......so you might say the jury is still out...but while you
continue to deny the cause, you can't deny the effect.....or can you???
As to Al Gore, while he may have won a Nobel Prize for writing about GW....he hasn't done anything to cut down on his own excess
contributions to GW....why would I try to defend that?
I'm just glad that I don't carry the amount of hate around that you seem to

Gayle in MD
05-27-2008, 07:50 AM
LOL, forgive me friend, but how come the actions of Hitler friendly ancestors in the Bush family are ignored, while anyone who speaks out against Bush's policies, is subjected to criticism for their own ancestors all the way back to 1850! And even cousins, no less!

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
05-27-2008, 07:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, forgive me friend, but how come the actions of Hitler friendly ancestors in the Bush family are ignored, while anyone who speaks out against Bush's policies, is subjected to criticism for their own ancestors all the way back to 1850! And even cousins, no less!

Gayle in Md. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FFCC66">We have better PR people! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>

Gayle in MD
05-27-2008, 07:59 AM
Yes, almost the entire American media! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Deeman3
05-27-2008, 08:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, almost the entire American media! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

<span style="color: #FFCC66"> I'm not so sure about that. Now, if you say Obama ownes much of the media, right now, I'd agree.

I do watch Fox News, at least a couple of shows, the Hannity talking over guests I don't watch or care for. However, if the Al Queda has so many outlets such as MSNBC, CNN and others, the right should have one outlet. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I think, you and I both, see news media as for or against the things we hold dear. By that strict interpretation, we are at opposite ends of the spectrum. The vast bulk of America is somewhere in between and most don't have the capability to see the shameless pandering by the left and right by their media outlets. If Fox did not ring true with so many folks, it would fail in ratings, which it certainly is not doing. The good news is that there is room for the far left as well as the far right in this country and the people, as dumb as most are, will make the decision of who is telling the real truth.

I do think you are mistaking a media wide, except Fox, unfairness toward Hillary as from the right, while it is certainly from the far left, especially right now. MSNBC should have an Obama sign in their logo. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>

Gayle in MD
05-27-2008, 09:02 AM
Well Friend, I must disagree. If you try to come up with pundits from the left, and I do the same for those from the right, I dare say the right would win by a long shot in the numbers.

I think the right, by and large, owns the American Media, and what we often hear about as supposed left wing media, both
TV and newspapers, surely have displayed support for all things Bush over these last eight years, including helping him to gin up lame excuses on faulty intelligence to justify this insane occupation of Iraq.

Many media cream of the crop icons, for example, were shocked by the way the American Press failed in their obligations as watchdogs of our democracy, in the run up to the war. Helen Thomas even wrote an excellent book about it, Watchdogs Of Democracy?: The Waning Washington Press Corps And How It Failed The Public

As for MSNBC, you are quite right, their bashers of Hillary, though, were mostly righties like Scarborough, and his blond side kick, Russart, a rightie, Williams, the network is full of them, and Chris Mathews, a guy who is associated with the left, but since joining the millionaire club, has become about as right wing as you could find, and has displayed not only pronounced misogynnistic leanings, but is clearly a Clinton hater from way back, and you are right to frame him in the way that you are saying, except that I believe he has changed his party in favor of the tax cuts for the rich.

NBC's Brian Williams, another right, who is a Clinton Basher, and incidentally, NBC as a network has been right wing for some time, with commentators favored by the present White House, such as Russart and Williams, as their hidden operatives, just as right wing as Fox.

Hillary's most avid attackers are from the right, and those from the left have displayed throughout their own problems with sexist leanings, hence, she had two strikes against her, one based on sexism, and the other based on a decades old hatred of all things Clinton by the right, both central right, and the right wing nuts.

So it seems we are faced with several interesting dilemmas in traditional American history for the next election, one of which has already been settled to some degree. Which do we hate the most? Women, blacks or George Bush's failed policies?

I think I know what the right wing selection will be, but I am holding out some hope that we as Americans can get past the shame of our hypocritical history as a nation, and do what is best for the country.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
05-27-2008, 09:15 AM
Well, as I see many of the "right" pundits you identify as "left" we won't ever agree on this for sure.

I do agree that the vote will probably come down to one of race in many areas, not in South but in the Northeast and Midwest as well.

If the choice is clear that McCain will represent no change from Bush and Obama has a clearly defined path for achieving and paying for his ideas, the race won't even be close. I think the Dems' must pin all their hopes on painting McCain as an incompetent follower of Bush and, somehow, make him appear to be so old, he just can't function as POTUS. This could work or could backfire. As I have said, with the lack of a candidate I cal really get behind this year, I will just try to prepare for, perhaps, 4 rough years ahead. I, like many, have done about as much business and financial planning as I can in preparation and will now just have to sit it out and hope for the best.

DickLeonard
05-27-2008, 09:39 AM
Deeman I do remember reading an article about Hilliary meeting with Rupert Murdoch. The jist of the article was that Rupert being New York based should form a good relationship with the New York junior Senator. I only allow 10 minutes a day to read news I spend the rest of the day reading the Chalk Board especially the ramblings of LWW. That was all I got out of the piece.####

DickLeonard
05-27-2008, 10:03 AM
Deeman that is strange about Bobby Sands hating Americans and Catholics, my grandmother hated the British and Protestants. Of course she had a reason she escaped the potato famine.####

Deeman3
05-27-2008, 10:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DickLeonard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Deeman that is strange about Bobby Sands hating Americans and Catholics, my grandmother hated the British and Protestants. Of course she had a reason she escaped the potato famine.#### </div></div>

<span style="color: #FFFF66">No, Bobby only hated the British and the protestants as far as I know. My grandmother went over for his funeral but, at the time, it was mostly an embarrassment to me. </span>

wolfdancer
05-27-2008, 08:24 PM
I think Bobby was fighting the same thing we have going on today.
As Someone noted, commenting on his protest:
"sooner we get rid of these *** wankers that cant run a raffle never mind a country the better."

Deeman3
05-28-2008, 07:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think Bobby was fighting the same thing we have going on today.
As Someone noted, commenting on his protest:
"sooner we get rid of these *** wankers that cant run a raffle never mind a country the better."
</div></div>

<span style="color: #FFCC66">and, of course, if you have ever dined in the U.K. you know that a hunger strike was not an especially tough dicision to make. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

You know the really sad thing about Bobby was that all the other clowns that started the hunger strike with him, eventually gave in and ate twinkies. It was, I suppose, their Hollywood Diet for 60 days and not true political committment. </span>

wolfdancer
05-28-2008, 11:43 AM
I have dined in the U.K.....both London and Plymouth....and understand why the British all look so constipated....