BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Jul 13, 2005 18:46:09 GMT -5
Well, you boys (and girls?) may not believe this but if (and it looks like he did) Rove is guilty than I say he should go. Simple, really, when you think about it. And I must admit that I agree with every word Scott has said (excepting the last line, of course. I'm sure Scott would agree with me that every administration does exactly that...bending the facts and the truth to make their side look good and the other bad). Not I think we should be passive in accepting that, but we all seem to be affected by this malaise. To be honest, there hasn't been a master politician in the everyday news since Clinton left office. And Hillary is nowhere near as good as Bill in that department. And it looks like it's going to get much worse before it gets any better. There really isn't anyone left (right now) on either side that has the ability to get people going with the same enthusiasm that Clinton or Reagan had. I may be wrong because, after all Clinton pretty much came from nowhere (and after a disastrous convention speech from the previous election cycle, I might add) so you can never really tell. But I still think that with the media the way it is today (W was pretty much preordained as the only viable republican by the media, until they all went ga-ga over McCain) we would already know who that could be. And John Edwards, John Kerry, Howard Dean, et al are not it. Maybe that Obama guy? Or even better would be James Traficant. At least that guy will tell you something straight to your face.
Bill L
---> BTW, when I say Rove should go, I mean a full trial with jail if convicted. The law is the law and it really shouldn't matter who you are. But then again, I'm still waiting for OJ to find the real killer on Pebble or the TPC at Sawgrass so I'm sure another set of rules will apply (as it does for both sides). Not that I agree with that, mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by chadgumbo on Jul 13, 2005 18:49:07 GMT -5
The real issue here is the brazen lies that this Administration is able to conjure up, get people to believe, and then watch as the public hardly blinks an eye when they are exposed. I've come to believe that there is a significant percentage of this nation's population that simply doesn't want to think. And that's why it is so easy for people in authoritative positions to go ahead and make decisions with little thought to accountability or consequence (although Mr. Ebbers may disagree with me on this particular point of view  ) People aren't interested in the truth. Why let pesky little facts get in the way of one's own personal perception? |
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jul 13, 2005 23:07:41 GMT -5
The real issue here is the brazen lies that this Administration is able to conjure up, get people to believe, and then watch as the public hardly blinks an eye when they are exposed. I first noticed it with "The Warren Commission Report", then there was what they did to Jim Garrison when he had the JFK assassins by the cajones. Then there was the Ollie North caper (thanks Ollie, we really needed crack cocaine to fund our national security  ). They convinced us that McCain must be a nut case because not only did he serve his country in Viet Nam, but he was a POW.  . That brings us around to Dubya and Rove who seem to have mastered the art of BRAINWASHING AMERICA!!! At least enough of us anyway, but please understand that this writer is excluded from that flock. I won't even go into all of the masterful thought process shaping over these last two Prez elections. It's pretty damn scary that us countrymen have let em steal us blind in the name of ultra conservatism, but there's actually nothing conservative about any of it. Fascist yes...conservative no. |
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Jul 14, 2005 12:58:57 GMT -5
I won't even go into all of the masterful thought process shaping over these last two Prez elections.
Much the same thought process went into getting Clinton elected twice. Let's not forget that he was put up in '92 as a sacraficial lamb (at the time, Bush I was in the 80% approval bracket) and was given no chance of actually winning. If it wasn't for Carville and Begala, Clinton would still be in Little Rock. I would even go so far as to say that the '92 election changed the way people run for President in much the same way that the race between Nixon and Kennedy made a difference (ie. using television to promote yourself) for future elections.
It's pretty damn scary that us countrymen have let em steal us blind in the name of ultra conservatism, but there's actually nothing conservative about any of it. Fascist yes...conservative no.
I don't think you'll find too many conservatives (myself included) that would call Bush II an ultra conservative. First and foremost, he has expanded big government influence by creating more levels (Department of Homeland Security, etc.) and that is far from doing something that an ultra conservative would do. What Pat Buchanan (the poster boy of ultra conservatisim) would do (close all the borders and immediately find and deport all illegal aliens) is ultra conservative. And much like Clinton was not far left, Bush is not ultra conservative. They both try/tried to straddle the fence to keep as many people on board as possible.
Regarding your brainwashing comment, when I get home I will post some of the brainwashing and dirty tactics that have plagued the presidential post from almost the begining of this country's existence. That doesn't make it, but I suppose it makes it as American as apple pie. But then again, every country throughout time has had to go through the same things over and over again ad nauseum. You'd think by now that we would have learned.
Bill L
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jul 14, 2005 23:22:11 GMT -5
Much the same thought process went into getting Clinton elected twice. If it wasn't for Carville and Begala, Clinton would still be in Little Rock. I don't think you'll find too many conservatives (myself included) that would call Bush II an ultra conservative. First and foremost, he has expanded big government influence by creating more levels (Department of Homeland Security, etc.) and that is far from doing something that an ultra conservative would do. Regarding your brainwashing comment, when I get home I will post some of the brainwashing and dirty tactics that have plagued the presidential post from almost the begining of this country's existence. Bill L Bill L. Again...Clinton was almost 6 years ago (seems so long). Move on. If it weren't for Ross Perot, Clinton would still be in Arkansas. I didn't say Dubya was a conservative. Jeeez, he spends money like Paris Hilton on Rodeo Drive. What I meant was he is supported by Rush and O'reilly driven neo-cons who aren't even willing to consider anything other than their same old tired-assed rhetoric. BRAINWASHED!!! Be careful Bill. You're perilously close yourself. ;D just kidding...sorta. Post up some of the Carter Administration's "nasty, dirty, lowdown brainwashing the public" tactics. Please don't mention the Windfall Profits Tax. I know that hurt some rich folks feelings for a while, but they've been more than compensated for it.  I know that all politicians are every bit as trustworthy as CEO's & Lobbyist , but the only ones we can do anything about are these currently and hopefully the ones in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jul 15, 2005 10:42:28 GMT -5
I see now that Karl Rove is directing blame for outing Valerie Plame toward his "useful tool" the media.
So now in his wake are McCain, Kerry, the former (and Real) CIA, FBI-Homeland Whatchamacallit, Democratic Party (as much their fault as his), Dan Rather and any other media that doesn't play by his rules, the general public, probably his dog....
I wonder what happens when he runs out of people to throw under the bus?
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Jul 15, 2005 11:34:17 GMT -5
I said earlier that I was wishing I had kept track of all the times a Bush political appointee revised or changed some scientific report to better match their policies. There is an editorial in today's Contra Costa Times that scolds the Bushies -- yet again -- for Newsspeak (my words, not the Times') when they altered a study of the effect on salmon populations of diversions of water from the American/Sacramento River Delta to large Central Valley agribusinesses . The point of the edictorial is that plans and policies need to be based on sound science, not political favoritism. I include it at the end of this post.
Bill rejoined our left-liberal conversation in the meantime, and I want to just support his contention that dirty-tricksterism is nothing new to Presidential politics (hell, any politics ... at any level). This does not make it right, of course ... and it is one of the reasons such a large percentage of our voting population has no faith in politicians to "fix" anything. To go back and beat a dead horse one more time, the only real differences that can be projected between Al Gore having won that contested election and George Junior being given the throne is that we would probably not be in a shooting war in Iraq right now (though the Middle East would be tense with other issues), laws protecting the environment would have been enacted (including probable ratification of the Kyoto Protocols) instead of being rolled back, and affirmative action would still be a clean word. The corporations would still be in charge, just under neolib control instead of neocon, and we would still be having these satisfying but essentially meaningless "free" discussions on the same topics while nothing really changed.
Which is precisely the point ... under a thin veneer of civil rights and freedom to do as we please because it doesn't truly upset the power structure, we can still walk about relatively freely. Our arguments are essentially pointless, and are tolerated because they (1) are pointless and (2) serve the extremely beneficial purpose of divide-and-conquer.
Next, I post an analysis of the Bush Administration's "landmark" social agenda victory (NCLB), but first, the promised editorial:
Posted on Fri, Jul. 15, 2005
EDITORIAL
Politics trumps science
IT MUST BE discouraging to be a scientist working on a federal environmental study under the Bush administration. That's especially true if the scientific data collected do not match the political desires of the White House.
Once again, a Bush administration official reversed the findings of a scientific study. This time it concerned an analysis of how increases in Delta water use would affect salmon.
The scientists concluded that significant increases in water taken from the Delta would compromise the integrity of endangered species and would drive salmon closer to extinction.
This determination, however, could make it rougher on agribusinesses in the Central Valley, which are seeking more water.
Salmon fisheries and environmentalists don't have nearly the political clout of large Central Valley farm interests, which want to renew lucrative long-term water contracts.
That is why the final opinion issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration last fall said that increased use of Delta water would not jeopardize California's salmon and steelhead.
That is just the opposite of what the biologists who did the study concluded.
Fortunately, an audit by the U.S. Department of Commerce's Office of Inspector General, called for by Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, found irregularities in how the Delta report was revised.
As has happened time and again under this administration, science has been trumped by narrow politically favored industries to the detriment of the public interest.
Similar studies about the negative effects of increased water usage on the Columbia and Klamath rivers were ignored or skewed to favor big agriculture. In the case of the Klamath, farmers were given the OK in 2002 to take more water from the river, which resulted in the death of thousands of salmon later on that year.
Political tinkering with science has called into question the entire federal plan for management of the state's water.
Miller is right in saying the plan needs to be re-evaluated -- based on sound science and not political favoritism.
|
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Jul 15, 2005 11:48:56 GMT -5
I wonder what happens when he runs out of people to throw under the bus?Well, he'll either get a TV show or start working on elections in other countries. You know, just like Begala and Carville. What?.... oh right, we can't use the Clinton years as examples because that was sooooo long ago. But it's OK to bash Reagan and Bush I (as has been proven throughout this and the earlier thread). I guess my only point here is that you can't change what's happened, just what will be. And in your earlier post (to which I had replyed and been told to get over it already [actually the quote was "move on"]) you were the one that brought up I first noticed it with "The Warren Commission Report", then there was what they did to Jim Garrison when he had the JFK assassins by the cajones. Then there was the Ollie North caper (thanks Ollie, we really needed crack cocaine to fund our national security ). They convinced us that McCain must be a nut case because not only did he serve his country in Viet Nam, but he was a POW. . That brings us around to Dubya and Rove who seem to have mastered the art of BRAINWASHING AMERICA!!! At least enough of us anyway, but please understand that this writer is excluded from that flock. I won't even go into all of the masterful thought process shaping over these last two Prez elections. It's pretty damn scary that us countrymen have let em steal us blind in the name of ultra conservatism, but there's actually nothing conservative about any of it. Fascist yes...conservative no. Which, as we all can see, was farther back in time than, say, the previous administration. Having said that, I would like to add that I'm not trying to stir up shite here. Just responding from (obviously) a different perspective. I would think that intellectually the arguements I've made so far have been very consistant (whether or not you agree with them) and that it doesn't make me right and you wrong (or vice versa). Bill L ps---> regarding Pres. Carter, he was one of the few men that has been elected that was indeed a fine human being. A terrible President but a very nice, generous, genuine person. There probably won't be another like him until we ship all of the current crop of politicians to an island so they can tear each other up the chute for a change instead of the American people (who deserve better, but continue to re elect people that are proven to be criminal or at least up for sale to the lobby/political action groups and big business)
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jul 15, 2005 13:48:19 GMT -5
What?.... oh right, we can't use the Clinton years as examples because that was sooooo long ago. But it's OK to bash Reagan and Bush I (as has been proven throughout this and the earlier thread). I guess my only point here is that you can't change what's happened, just what will be. And in your earlier post (to which I had replyed and been told to get over it already [actually the quote was "move on"]) you were the one that brought up Which, as we all can see, was farther back in time than, say, the previous administration. Bill L ps---> regarding Pres. Carter, he was one of the few men that has been elected that was indeed a fine human being. A terrible President but a very nice, generous, genuine person. "We" don't use the Clinton years as examples. "We" use the Clinton years to change the subject when it's time to "splain" Dubya etal's latest caper. A tired tactic. You'll not find a post by me, or for a long time now, anyone else on here bashing RayGun or Daddy Bush. It could be easily done but what's the point? Thanks for confirming my point of "you can't change what's happened, just what will be." The topic was brainwashing the public. I cited some good examples. Carter as a "terrible President" had in place, and was funding research on alternative energy resources with a goal of no dependency on foreign oil within 10 years. Reagan killed all of those programs and diverted the money to extremely expensive and useless military weapons programs. The two most expensive; the B1-B Bomber and Star Wars Project have (*almost) never been used. Now...to my way of thinking, it sure would be great about now to have no need for foreign oil, instead of a hoax of a project that cost $38,000,000,000.00, and a rusting heap of hundreds of planes at $280,000,000.00...each. Bill L. are you sure you know what a terrible President is? Yes..a little RayGun bashing. Sue me!  *To be fair; out of the hundreds of B1-B's, 3 were sent to Afaganistan in '02 for their first ever combat assignment after 17 yrs in existance. 1 ditched in the Atlantic. 1 landed under distress and had to be overhauled to make it back to the US. And 1 made (1) bombing run. "THE" most expensive bombing sorte in the history of the world. |
|
|
|
Post by chadgumbo on Jul 15, 2005 17:29:35 GMT -5
From Scott Hays's postMore from Scott HaysFrom a June 6th quote I posted over on "Quote of the Day"And one more from Scott:I agree with Scott in that had Gore been elected in 2000, we would in all liklihood not be involved in a war with Iraq. I'd like to believe Gore would have sent our forces to Afghanistan - it was a correct decision. My quote of Pierre Trudeau rings of truth when we think about the way the Bush administration justified the invasion with their sense of certainty that WsMD would be found. When none were found, the spin doctors were at full speed ahead to find other justifications for our presence. I was having lunch with my Dad a couple of weeks back (he's a steadfast Bush supporter by the way) and he believes our presence in Iraq is justified regardless of what the reasons were /are  for being there. "If we don't fight them over there, we'll have to fight them here" is what he said to me. From my point of view it demonstrates that the spin doctors are working their magic quite well. Again, to beat a dead horse, Iraq had nothing to do with attacks of September 11, 2001. As far as Iraq bringing their aggression to us... I can only reflect on how inaccurate their SCUDs were when they launched them at Israel back in the early 1990s. And if they couldn't hit Israel with any degree of precision, what are we worried about over here across the ocean? And if Israel had any present day concerns, the Israelis have demonstrated that they can more than take care of themselves. The president wants us to believe that Saddam was an evil-doer and that he needed to be removed from power. I believe the president is mostly correct about that, but does that alone and of itself justify our invasion? If that is true then why aren't we fighting in North Korea? Don't we need to depose Kim Jong Il at least as much as needed to depose Saddam? North Korea is testing rockets (and it's not because they want to beat us to Mars  ). They have nuclear capabilities. And that brings us to Iran. Why aren't we there? How about the various despots elsewhere in the world? If we're going to justify invading a nation because of a corrupt and evil leader, well... there's more than one bowling pin standing at the other end of that particular lane don't you think? For me it's not a Republican administration's mindset vs. a Democratic administration's mindset. What do I mean by that? Just this. I think George Bush I was absolutely correct in going to war with Iraq in the Desert Storm campaign. Saddam invaded Kuwait, and Kuwait was unable to defend itself. We went to their aid and it was the politically and morally correct thing to do. George Bush II was correct in going to war with Afghanistan. Everything indicated that the attacks of 9/11 originated from al-chaida, and the factions responsible were being harbored in Afghanistan. Both of those presidents had my complete support. But I don't believe you invade a country because you're pretty sure they've got WsMD. Either YOU KNOW they do or you don't. And if you don't know for sure, you don't go in and then change your reasons for invading when it turns out they didn't have what you were looking for. To quote Forrest Gump - "That's all I have to say about that." For those of you wondering where Jashley's been. Via e-mail I've learned that he is monitoring the posts, but has been unable to log on (or when he has successfully logged on) gets booted whenever he tries to post something. Don't know if the problem is with his computer, his internet provider, or some other source. But that's why the temporary exile has occurred. Hopefully the glitches will get worked out and we'll hear from him soon. -goosfraba all Chad
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jul 15, 2005 18:16:40 GMT -5
North Korea is testing rockets (and it's not because they want to beat us to Mars ). They have nuclear capabilities. And that brings us to Iran. Why aren't we there? How about the various despots elsewhere in the world? If we're going to justify invading a nation because of a corrupt and evil leader, well... there's more than one bowling pin standing at the other end of that particular lane don't you think? For me it's not a Republican administration's mindset vs. a Democratic administration's mindset. For those of you wondering where Jashley's been. Via e-mail I've learned that he is monitoring the posts, but has been unable to log on (or when he has successfully logged on) gets booted whenever he tries to post something. Hopefully the glitches will get worked out and we'll hear from him soon. -goosfraba all Chad Have you checked out China's military buildup lately? They stated yesterday that if the US aggressed in any way over their involvement with Thailand..."they would nuke the United States". And from what I've seen, they certainly could from any one of their many, many nuke subs. A little scary.  Amen Chad. This Repub versus Dems, libs versus conserves, illegals versus citizens, corporate wall street versus the little guy business is going to be the ruin of this country! Glad to hear Jashley is still with us. Perhaps Rick could help get him up and running? |
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jul 15, 2005 21:51:09 GMT -5
There probably won't be another like him until we ship all of the current crop of politicians to an island so they can tear each other up the chute for a change instead of the American people (who deserve better, but continue to re elect people that are proven to be criminal or at least up for sale to the lobby/political action groups and big business) Bill L. You state the exact same point that practically every post on here is making. Now I have to ask, how is it that we seem to be on different "pages"? That is why I think some day when "both sides" recognize how they've been duped by certain "entities" the merge back together as a country won't be that difficult or take that long. I wish we could get a jump on minimizing the damage tho in the mean time. I don't think we can ever "ship the current crop of politicians to an island so they can.....", but we can be much, MUCH more aware of who we elect, and why. We'd probably have to turn off our TV's first. Just demand that they represent the country as a whole, and not be so greedy for chips that they will sell out OUR country to benefit no one else but their sorry asses. In other words prevent them from taking what is ours!!!How did this election process ever become so difficult? Never mind. I know exactly how it did. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Jul 15, 2005 22:07:48 GMT -5
Man...somebody stop me!!!!! I read in USA Today that as soon as Hurricane Dennis started forming the national average for a gallon of gas jumped $.06 because of the danger of an oil shortage. Why did a storm before 6 years ago not cause gasoline prices to spike? |
|
BillL
Full Member
RIGHT ON !!!!
Posts: 172
|
Post by BillL on Jul 16, 2005 13:53:32 GMT -5
Chad, writing about jashley and his inability to stay logged in:
Don't know if the problem is with his computer, his internet provider, or some other source.
Actually, I'm the reason. I've made it impossible for any computer that he's using to log into the site. It's a hybrid form of biometrics and quantum computing that I've been developing while extricating the previous days nourishment. And in case you guys are worried, and you should be, I'm coming after the rest of you now that it's been confirmed that J can't connect. Pretty soon I'll be the only one that can log in here so, by default, I will eventually win this argument. Wait till you see the military contract I pick up for this.
Bill L
(just trying to live up to what some people think that most conservatives are like)
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott Hays on Jul 16, 2005 14:10:39 GMT -5
Paul Krugman, a writer for the NY Times, writes about "Living in Karl Rove's America". In it, he talks a lot about the fact that there is very little attention paid anymore to the "real world" outside the world of political truth ... if someone says something is "true", it matters little if there is substantive fact to support it. The initial statement receives a lot of media attention, then people have to spend a lot of time disproving the initial statement. Because most issues tend to be complex (and the fabrication was simplistic), it often takes long and convoluted discussions to explain what really happened. The issue takes on a life of its own, and we pay so much attention to the side-issues that we forget the original statement. By the time the original fabrication is disproven, it has been forgotten or dismissed ("old news", "get over it", "move on"). People often forget the original statement (particularly who made it), but it continues to be believed as a cultural myth by a large segment of the population no matter how thoroughly it is discredited. One particular case in point is the issue of weapons of mass destruction, which a large percentage of the American public still believe Saddam Hussein had (or that he was in some way allied with al-Qaida).
Now, Karl Rove is not the inventor of such practices. As Bill L will gladly point out, every administration has had at least one person whose specialty was providing this type of disinformation. But Karl Rove has elevated it to an art. Does it really matter who in the Administration leaked the name of Valerie Plame/Wilson to Robert Novack or other Administration-friendly reporters? Look how this story has taken hold of the media and helped bury consideration of disintegrating Middle East policy (and Far East, or ... gasp ... Western Hemisphere) off the front pages. Does it matter if Democrats want to find therapy for terrorists instead of wage war? Does it really matter if John Kerry earned his medals or not (or whether John McCain is whacko, or not)?
What does matter is that George Orwell could not have scripted emerging political "truth" better than this administration. Facts are irrelevant, and well-placed followers in an increasingly centralized media world can give the impression that changing story-lines are widely accepted. Please note the unflinching changes in rhetoric about the war in Iraq: before the war, apologists condemned the CIA for understating the threat posed by Saddam's wmds; after the war (not that it's over, by the way), they condemned the CIA for exaggerating the very same threat. Today, when Karl Rove himself has risen to visible level of criticism, Republican leaders (and pundit supporters in the media) praise him for being (of all things) a whistle-blower on the naughty press.
Despite the uncanny ability of most politicians, at all times, to sink to the lowest level and be sleazy and slinky in practically every regard, there has always been a significant group in all major parties who could be counted on to rise above the party line and actually be somewhat principled in their behavior and beliefs. At opposite ends of the political spectrum, few could discredit the integrity of Barry Goldwater or George McGovern (for example). But today? The party that prides itself on small government and fiscal responsibility blindly stumbles down the path to bureaucratic agencies monstrous in size and power (Homeland Security, for one, and the Department of Education which, ironically, was in the Republican Platform -- at point in its history -- to be eliminated), corporate socialism, and perpetual war.
And they cheer?!
|
|
)
). They convinced us that McCain must be a nut case because not only did he serve his country in Viet Nam, but he was a POW. 
. That brings us around to Dubya and Rove who seem to have mastered the art of BRAINWASHING AMERICA!!! At least enough of us anyway, but please understand that this writer is excluded from that flock. I won't even go into all of the masterful thought process shaping over these last two Prez elections. It's pretty damn scary that us countrymen have let em steal us blind in the name of ultra conservatism, but there's actually nothing conservative about any of it. Fascist yes...conservative no.
for being there. "If we don't fight them over there, we'll have to fight them here" is what he said to me. From my point of view it demonstrates that the spin doctors are working their magic quite well. Again, to beat a dead horse, Iraq had nothing to do with attacks of September 11, 2001. As far as Iraq bringing their aggression to us... I can only reflect on how inaccurate their SCUDs were when they launched them at Israel back in the early 1990s. And if they couldn't hit Israel with any degree of precision, what are we worried about over here across the ocean? And if Israel had any present day concerns, the Israelis have demonstrated that they can more than take care of themselves.
). They have nuclear capabilities. And that brings us to Iran. Why aren't we there? How about the various despots elsewhere in the world? If we're going to justify invading a nation because of a corrupt and evil leader, well... there's more than one bowling pin standing at the other end of that particular lane don't you think?