CNN Airing Enemy Propoganda

CNN is doing everything possible to help their allies in Iraq win the war against the American infidels. Ordinarily, one would have to visit a jihadist web site in order to view Islamic terrorists killing American soldiers. But not any more. Last week, CNN’s website broadcast a video, A Sniper’s-eye view of Iraq, in which correspondent Michael Ware breathlessly narrated the action leading up to the shooting (and possible deaths) of several American soldiers by enemy snipers.

CNN leans decidely left of center, as do most media outlets. The liberal intellegentsia will rabidly deny the existence of liberal bias in the media, even though a UCLA-led study in 2005 showed that "...[O]f the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' 'Evening News,' The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal."

Liberals will have a ready response to CNN's blatant act of treason that will seem almost logical, even reasonable. Liberal talking heads are not stupid. You would have to be very intelligent to convince yourself that gay marriage poses no threat whatsoever to traditional family values; that abortion on demand is not a murderous, barbaric form of birth control; or that the trans-generational subsidization of the able-bodied poor does not breed contempt, resentment, self-loathing, helplessness, hopelessness . . . a seemingly endless cycle of dependency and despair.

Liberals have been honing and fine-tuning their propoganda for years. The emergence of the Internet has made it all too easy for them to share their very best corkscrews of logic. A few mouseclicks and - voila! - liberal talking points are distributed worldwide. Liberals today have a ready response for everything. I eagerly await the explanations by the CNN apologists.

But it is nothing more than empty rhetoric. Contemporary American liberalism has more in common with ancient Greek Hedonism than the liberalism exemplified by JFK, LBJ, or FDR. Intelligence without virtue. A ship without a rudder.

Many liberals are smart enough to win arguments and duels of logic. I had a philosophy professor in college who was an avowed communist, and fiercely proud of it. He was so logical and so smart that he could convince you an arrow in flight never reaches its target. Very smart, very logical, and completely wrong. And that, to me, is comtemporary American liberalism in a nutshell - At times very smart, very logical, but still completely wrong. CNN is a very good example.

In a time of war, it is treasonous for any American news agency to air enemy propoganda showing American soldiers being shot, possibly even killed. It is sickening. But when CNN's track record is taken into consideration, sad to say it is not very surprising.

Posted by Chris Rowan at October 23, 2006 9:12 PM
Comments
Comment #189796

Chris,
Check you link for the CNN article.

Why is it treason for CNN to air this? I am not agreeing or disagreeing, just asking for an explanation.

Posted by: phx8 at October 23, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #189797

It’s people like this that are the reason that we’ve had all of one PhD in the history of the American presidency. Anti-intellectualism of this kind is common to totalitarian apologists. The intellectuals were the first targets of Mao (the Cultural Revolution) and some of the most powerful fascist dictators of the 20th Century (whose names I won’t mention because they’re over-used in comparisons).

Chris, you can go on and on about “intelligence without values,” but while we can measure intelligence to some degree, whose values are you speaking of? Yours? Your religion’s? We have different values, apparently. You see treason and I see the actual news—unadulterated, unsweetened, not sugar-coated news in this case. Do our soldiers give life and limb in this unwarranted “war?” The answer is yes, and that’s maybe hard for you to swallow. But this isn’t a video game, and people are really truly dying out there. We can sweep it under the rug—and have (see: no showing of American caskets and embedding journalists)—but at some point, thank God, someone has the courage to show what’s going on over there. Perhaps the treason charge should be issued in the direction of those hoping to obscure the actual sacrifices being made by our soldiers so that this administration can save face and put money into Halliburton’s pocket. How ‘bout them apples, Chris?

Or am I too “intellectual” for you? Beware! I may make an utterly reasonable and logical argument!

But for me, this is more about morals than anything else.


Posted by: DavidL at October 23, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #189798

Because its job is to report news, not carefully conceived and staged propaganda for the other side in time of war. Since this material is really not news, helps us in no way to objectively understand the issues, has no value other than as enemy propaganda…

The Constitution explicitly defines giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war as treason.

Posted by: Bob Waters at October 23, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #189802

DavidL

There are different kinds of intelligence. The ability to manipulate ideas in writing or the abilty to take tests are a particular aspect.

Leadership is a separate skill. There are people with great leadership skills who have little in the way of book learning. We all know smart people who have no ability to make decent decisions. It is also true that grades in school are not good indicators of success in life.

Re education, I think the peak of success in everything except the science is the MA. Those with MBAs or MAs run things. Those with PhDs teach.

You know the old saying: Those who can do. Those who can’t teach. Those who can’t even teach teach gym (or maybe blog).

Posted by: Jack at October 23, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #189804

Only 18% of the American People believe we are winning the war in Iraq. It’s not because CNN aired this tape. It is because we aren’t winning the war. We are not winning the war because we have political incompetent leaders running the war. If anyone believes that what is happening in Iraq wasn’t easily predictable, they like our incompetent leaders must have been asleep when Yugoslavia fell apart. Give us all a break, really. Sunni Bathists suppressing a much larger population of Shia and Curds and these people didn’t have a clue as to what would happen when we pulled the cork out of that bottle.

Posted by: jlw at October 23, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #189805

Davidl

When you actually make an intelligent argument let me know.

You’re argument falls into the area of the kooks as soon as you bring up the “H” (Halliburton) bomb. Maybe if you just stop using the liberal talking points, you know it’s all about oil, evil Halliburton, evil corporations, then maybe I can take you seriously.

As far as the caskets, the families do not want them shown on tv. As far as Halliburton they were doing just fine without Iraq and they would be just fine without it. If it was all about oil, Saddam would have sold us all we wanted and it would have been much cheaper.

Using your idea about the media and propaganda, I guess it would have been ok during WWII for the theatres to show Leni Riefenstahl’s NAZI propaganda films or CBS radio airing Tokyo Rose.

Posted by: Keith at October 23, 2006 10:55 PM
Comment #189807

Well, I read the article about the study. It discounted opinion pages and op-eds, where the generally conservative owners express their opinions. The study used an unusual methodology, which I am not qualified to judge, but I guess Chris is. If you read the whole thing carefully, though, what it really says is that the major media outlets are pretty moderate.

—-

The video — I found it (Chris, fix the link if you intended to link; I don’t want to link to it). It’s disturbing, but your account of it is very misleading. First, it seems that the screen blacks out after each shot so actual hits are not shown. Second, the reporter informs us this is propaganda from insurgents. Third, the military expert confirms that we, of course, use the same tactics. Fourth, there was nothing sympathetic in the entire report to the insurgent’s cause. Regardless, I find such videos disturbing and only looked at this one because I realized I could not trust Chris’ account because of his demogogeury. I find the rah-rah videos of cruise missles taking out buildings and all their occupants disturbing too.

I have no idea what planet you would have to live on to think this report was left of center, unless any reporting that describes the hazards of our troops leftist. To imply that liberals want the enemy to win is either 1) idiotic or 2) deliberate lying.

As for the rest of Chris’ article — typical angry ranting. Liberals are traitors, liberals want the terrorists to win, etc., etc. Well, you know, many in the Republican party have had enough of the incompetence and hair-brained “ideology” on the current crew in power. I’m personally sick to death of how often some on the right toss around the word “traitor.” It makes me think that to people such as Chris any reporting that doesn’t parrot the establishment line is dangerous.

Posted by: Trent at October 23, 2006 10:58 PM
Comment #189808

Make that “hare-brained.”

Posted by: Trent at October 23, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #189809
As far as the caskets, the families do not want them shown on tv.

Some do, some don’t. Why do only the ones that want what helps your political argument have the right to have their wishes honored?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 23, 2006 11:03 PM
Comment #189812

And when I say “actually challenged his post,” I do mean countered his statements with facts.

Darn liberal bias in those darn facts.

Chris, it’s really sad that you are so strongly defending anti-intellectualism. It’s just sad.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 23, 2006 11:14 PM
Comment #189813

Chris,
The message you bring in your post is mostly hate-filled drivel. A large part of the reason your party is going down the crapper is this divisiveness I see in your post. You, and only you, know THE truth(!!). We live in a free country. We have a free press. They are reporting a sad, disturbing, and horrible truth. I personally was quite angry as I watched that piece. But not at CNN. I was angry at the enemy who has been pouring into Iraq for the chance at a shot at our military. I was angry at the pack of lying-ass mongrels who got us into this fiasco. I get even angrier when I read pathetic attempts to carry water for them. I nominate YOU for chief water boy!

Posted by: Steve Miller at October 23, 2006 11:17 PM
Comment #189817

Great post. It wish it didn’t take so long to bring this leftist “reporting” to our attention.

Posted by: andy at October 23, 2006 11:26 PM
Comment #189820

I don’t really have a problem with the media airing such footage. The problem is that that they white-wash the atrocities committed by our enemies and refuse to also show footage of 9-11 and of the almost daily atrocities committed by insurgents, including shootings and beheadings of innocent people.

When I see such things, I don’t want to cut and run. I want to see our troops take off the gloves and kill every last one of those monsters.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 23, 2006 11:34 PM
Comment #189824

Why do you Cons hate our soldiers?

It’s true that the media does not show beheadings (thankfully—I just couldn’t stomach that), but they don’t spend a lot of time showing the effects of carpet-bombing, either. And besides, some of our closest allies in the Middle East are all about beheadings as criminal punishment.

Why do we claim to be bringing democracy to Iraq as a pretext for war when we don’t even support it in its neighbor Saudi Arabia? A royal family rules? That’s better?

But in any case, we’ve become so numb to violence, I don’t know if people would even react to graphic atrocities on mainstream television—theirs or ours.


As for Keith:

“You’re argument falls into the area of the kooks as soon as you bring up the “H” (Halliburton) bomb. Maybe if you just stop using the liberal talking points, you know it’s all about oil, evil Halliburton, evil corporations, then maybe I can take you seriously.”

Keith, if it wasn’t “all about oil,” what was it about? Sadly, being all about oil is probably the best option at this point, because at least then the administration would have had clear goals before going into this thing.

The “H” bomb always hits. They’ve reported record profits with no-bid contracts and a documented history of major corruption (at least seven separate charges pending against the entire corporation). You can’t look away from that, see our Vice President (one of the most powerful in history) and not put two and two together.


“Using your idea about the media and propaganda, I guess it would have been ok during WWII for the theatres to show Leni Riefenstahl’s NAZI propaganda films or CBS radio airing Tokyo Rose.”

Yes, it sure would have been OK. We are a free and critically thinking society (no matter what Chris Rowan wants), and we should be able to distinguish propaganda ourselves. We can watch “Triumph of the Will” today and marvel at it as a piece of propaganda. Are you afraid that Americans will jump over to the side of Al Qaeda or start singing the Horst-Wessel song? Do you have so little trust in your fellow citizens? We can see what the other side is trying to feed its people—we are a supposedly morally superior, open, and intellectually discriminating society—it’s the others that “hate freedom” that censor.

All you Cons can beat your war drums and hide your head in the sand. Our soldiers and their children are dying, and either you hate our country or you are in the deepest denial. You can call me unpatriotic, but in truth, who wants our country to be the better, more morally directed leader? Certainly not those who advocate torture, “necessary” casualties, and the deepening corruption of our system.

Posted by: DavidL at October 24, 2006 12:16 AM
Comment #189826

DavidL, if the media doesn’t show images of “carpet bombing” in Iraq it’s because there IS no carpet bombing in Iraq. If there was, they’d love to show it. I doubt that you even know what carpet bombing is.

Our closest allies do not drag people off the streets and behead them in basements and then put the videos of it on the internet.

You really do say some ridiculous things. “Our soldiers and their children are dying.” What in the world are you talking about? I’m not going to call you unpatriotic. Just woefully uninformed.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 24, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #189827

Report what the media is doing and see all the liberals go nuts! Way to go, Chris!!

Steve is swearing up a storm and SteveL goes into wacky conspiracy theory arguments about H and the VP…

Chris, you couldn’t have scripted it any better! You the man!

Posted by: Don at October 24, 2006 12:58 AM
Comment #189830

I vote we change the red blog from “republicans and conservatives” to “Desolation Row” This post by Cris was a complete distoration and foolish name calling. Some people will stay the course beleiving that we are there in Iraq to find WMD’s and to bring democracy to Iraq. Yet they seem to fing the nerve to call others traitors, disgusting absolutly disgusting.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 24, 2006 1:26 AM
Comment #189831

Simonsonian levels of “anger and misdirection” above logic and fair thought.

I like that. If people use it enough, if could become an official word like “Truthiness”.

Simonson = Arguments made for purely partisan reasons without any basis for reality.

Posted by: Juan dela Cruz at October 24, 2006 1:32 AM
Comment #189832

btw…

I just saw Fox News air the exact same sniping video.

When will you start calling Fox News traitors.

Posted by: Juan dela Cruz at October 24, 2006 1:34 AM
Comment #189834

What pains me the most here is what always pains me the most, how mis-informed and gullable conservatives usually are.

First fact, we don’t show caskets or the dead soldiers because it causes unrest every time it happens.

To back this up, here’s a little history lesson for you.

Prior to the civil war conflict was only as visual as the mind could take it. Since propaganda makes war heroic and fun there was little unrest. The civil war saw mass protests because of the photography of the dead and destruction; therefore, people saw the reality of conflict.

After the civil war, photography of the dead was not banned from American media outlets. Remarkably, the next few wars once again saw little unrest. That is, untill the Vietnam war.

During the Vietnam war, media was once again allowed to show the death and destruction of war. this brought war back into the face of Americans. Because of this, the vietnam war saw the largest mass of protests since the Civil War. Because of this, government once again banned the showing of death and destruction caused by a current war.

Oh wait a minute! This is just more logic and reasoning. The evil knowledge and education that conservatives like to also refer to as Liberal bias.

Second, the war was about oil. It might not have been about the here and now access to oil, but more of future planning by attempting to stabilize the region, (and in doing so, setting it even further off balance).

How nieve can you cons possibly be about what is going on in the world today?

Damn, you guys lost the fight with the summed up statement that Liberals on average are very intelligent and argue by using their intelligence and logic.

Christ, I think that’s why I don’t post frequently. I rarely see an intelligent debate. When I do, I usually feel as if I’m back to teaching in the Special Ed LD dept.

Posted by: Metacom at October 24, 2006 1:47 AM
Comment #189835

Metacom -
I guess this means you prefer CNN’s approach?

Posted by: Don at October 24, 2006 1:56 AM
Comment #189837

Here is the link to the CNN video:

http://www.cnn.com/video/world/2006/10/18/ware.iraq.insurgent.video.cnn/content.html

Watch the video. Can anyone can make heads or tails of what Chris writes? How does he draw his conclusions based upon this video? I am willing to give him a chance to elaborate, because frankly his original article makes no sense. How does showing this video constitute treason? Is Fox News also traitorous? Why does a video on insurgent tactics and counter-insurgency demonstrate liberal bias?

Is it treason to show an IED exploding? A car bomb? Is this CNN video treasonous only because it is video, rather than print? Are interviews with wounded vets treasonous?

Personally, I think the video is disturbing, but interesting, and definitely newsworthy.


Posted by: phx8 at October 24, 2006 2:05 AM
Comment #189838

Trent,
Good job earlier, picking apart the incoherent article by Chris. Damn your logic and intelligence! It is not fair!

Metacom,
Great comment.

Chris,
Can you explain why the USSR lost in Afghanistan even though they had no media coverage in their country?

Posted by: phx8 at October 24, 2006 2:11 AM
Comment #189841

Olbermann had an excellent commentary on this topic toight:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15392701/

Posted by: American Pundit at October 24, 2006 2:53 AM
Comment #189843

What surprises you about CNNs coverage. Since Viet Nam all news organizations have abandoned factual unbiased news. Sensationalism, America bashing, trashing our soldiers for ALL to see. That is what sells. The communist news network has not aired a relevant unbiased story since it became CNN. Again where is the surprise

Posted by: Montie Rumsower III at October 24, 2006 4:13 AM
Comment #189847

jlw,

Sunni Bathists suppressing a much larger population of Shia and Curds and these people didn’t have a clue as to what would happen when we pulled the cork out of that bottle.

Here I disagree, because it’s worst than that.
They *got* clue, many of them, coming from nations that have longer and wider experience with Middle East than them. They got large and well reported warnings, several of them, many of them even being exposed publically at UNSC.

They got clues. They *choose* to ignore them.
They’re not clueless, it’s even worst: they’re arrogant, so much that they think they knew better than the people that, well, actually knew better!

They really have no excuse.
As the nation who elected them: you got the leaders you deserve. Now deal with it. Start in november the 8, please.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 24, 2006 5:39 AM
Comment #189848

My Name Is Roger:

CHRIS ROWAN:

Very Good ! ! !

I like the part……………………………..

Intelligence without virtue

A ship without a rudder

It reminded me of a verse from the book of Romans

[PROFESSING THEMSELVES TO BE WISE, THEY BECAME FOOLS]
ROMANS 1:22

Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican

Posted by: ROGER at October 24, 2006 6:07 AM
Comment #189849

jlw said:

…and these people didn’t have a clue as to what would happen when we pulled the cork out of that bottle.

Some pertinent quotes by (then Secretary of Defense) Dick Cheney on April 29, 1991:

“I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we’d have had to hunt him down. And once we’d done that and we’d gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we’d have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi’i government or a Kurdish government or Ba’athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it’s my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.” [emphasis added]

Source

And part of a speech given at the Discovery Institute in 1992:

“I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today, we’d be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home…”

Source

Posted by: Liberal Demon at October 24, 2006 6:12 AM
Comment #189850

My Name Is Roger

What about the Mom or Dad or family or friends of the soldiers who were shot by the sniper.

I am sure they were over-joyed that [ CNN ] did what they did, watching sniper’s shooting there loved one.

I am sure they would like a copy so that they could send it to their family and friends for Christmas.

Or instead of watching football on Thanksgiving they could all set around a watch the video called [ A SNIPER’S EYE VIEW ].

Roiger A Conservative Christian Rupublican

Posted by: ROGER at October 24, 2006 6:22 AM
Comment #189854

Roger you got it right… For those who do not believe the bias in the news, here is a news item for you… we have lost approximatly 2,800 troops in this war. We lost over 3,000 Americans in 9/11. If we are to withdraw our troops and build up our own borders, will we be safe and win respect of the world? I think not. Right or wrong, this is my country. We all have a voice and we all have a vote. We can all sit back and express or satisfaction or dis-satisfaction with our countries leadership and then chose on November 7th. History teaches us a Country survives through strength. Strong leadership reqires hard decisions. So to my liberal pundits contiune with your banter, because it only serves those of like minds and drives those who believe in a strong nation to the polls. Because we like to always use numbers to justify our positions here is a number if use to make a point would state the it is safer in Iraq than in the homeland of America. Just a fact, 30,000 Americans die from gun-shot wounds in America every year! Now before my liberals take this to mean that this justifies the deaths of American Troops, that is not the point here. The point is we all use numbers and statics to make our points. However, we must all remember, Numbers don’t lie, only those who determine the Numbers. My point is simply the loss of any life is sad but the loss of one American Life is even sadder because we do not have the guts to fight the terrorist who have declared war on us and what we believe in. To cut and run from Iraq or Afganistan, would embolden the terrorst as well a provide them a safe haven to train, plot and eventually attack the US. To think anything less, is to not understand the radical islamist. I am married to a Muslim and thus have a somewhat better insight than most because I am given insight on the way they think. So my fellow Americans, I say vote and vote carefully, for a precieved defeat of the US in the Middle East will bring terror to our shores and our children will reap the death and destruction should we fail to display the courage to defeat these misguided individuals.

Posted by: Lacy at October 24, 2006 7:46 AM
Comment #189855

Chris, Bob, etc.,

What do you guys think about the Osama Bin Laden videos? Is is treason to show these also? They are obviously intended to be enemy propaganda.

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 24, 2006 7:51 AM
Comment #189856

Woody, absolutly… nothing from a terrorist is worthy of publication…. it only reaches more would be terrorist.

Posted by: Lacy at October 24, 2006 8:05 AM
Comment #189859

Lacy et al;

I’ve got an idea….let’s censor the media!

You guys kill me. The American people can judge for themselves what they want to see or not see. They can judge if a report is news, opinion, or propaganda. Obviously the right thinks its traitorous…their right to have an opinion. I happen to think it’s battlefield news. Dead is dead no matter whether from and IED or a sniper. I thought it was news because I have often wondered if snipers have been employed by our enemy…now I know.

Posted by: Tom L at October 24, 2006 8:42 AM
Comment #189860
Report what the media is doing and see all the liberals go nuts! Way to go, Chris!!

Uhhh…. no. “Report” implies presenting facts and truth in a manner that increases knowledge.

In contrast, what Chris’s post does is present a very narrow, distorted interpretation of actual reporting, completely misrepresent the legal basis of treason, and insult those that disagree with him.

Then, because he knows his argument is fallacious, he spends the rest of his time trying to set up a pre-emptive defense for why his post will not stand up to scrutiny, a defense based on insulting knowledge, education, and debate.

When your post is so bad that you have to end it with a defense of why you will lose the debate, it’s not a good sign of a serious thinker.

I, for one, use WB as a way to engage in debate, to see what other people are thinking, both among those who agree and disagree with me. In short, I use it as a means of communication.

What type of constructive communication is possible in response to an article that calls reporting that disagrees with the author treason, and that says that debate is futile because the author is always right, even when he can’t defend his arguments?

And you cheer this drivel on?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 8:44 AM
Comment #189863

The original post is so thin that most of it is spent attacking the anticipated attacks before they occur.
This is Chris’ description of liberal debate:

Very smart, very logical, and completely wrong.

As opposed to Chris’ argument which is not so smart and completely illogical - but according to him completely right.


Posted by: Schwamp at October 24, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #189864

Hi,
The lead article is misleading as I saw the CNN clip on tv last night and saw no one injured or killed. What I did see, however, is that there are actual enemy troops firing back at american soldiers. It is different from other clips shown by FOX tv network, in that American soldiers and Marines are not shown kicking in doors of domestic residences. The CNN clip shows actual enemy combatants firing at American military.

Posted by: John at October 24, 2006 9:39 AM
Comment #189865

Tom, here is a thought for you to ponder, Suppose, CNN staged this video and paid for the copy? What would your possition be? Note I stated suppose! Now lets go one step further, if you are an American trooper and a CNN reporter is with your unit and you come under fire, would you be less inclined to provide cover for this reporter? Rember, you are looking for truth.

Posted by: Lacy at October 24, 2006 9:45 AM
Comment #189866

My Name Is Roger

LACY:

Thank you for your comments.

QUESTION:

Being married to a Muslim, what do you think would be their reaction if we just packed-up and left Iraq.

From the Muslim’s that you know, do you get the impression

they are all terrorist

they are all anti-American

they all want to destroy the United States Of America

QUESTION: What is there reaction to the terrorist?

Do that back them or are they discusted with them, or just indefferent toward them?

Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican

Posted by: ROGER at October 24, 2006 9:49 AM
Comment #189867

Roger, for the most part, most Muslim are peace loving and God (Allah) fearing people who believe Jesus was God’s most beloved prophet. They also believe that Muslims should take care of their own problems when they can; however, it the case of Iraq, Hussain was a brutal Dictator and the country needed help. They believe that as soon as American Troop can leave Iraq with a stable government, the region as a whole will be better off. They also believe that Muslims killing Muslims is wrong and the twisted view of the radicals are also wrong. I had the opertunity to visit a Muslim Country recently and entered into discussions with several Muslims that believed Jhiad was good. By the time I left, they went back and read their Quran for the meaning of Jhiad. They learned for themselfs that the radical interpetation is the wrong interpetation. To really understand the Islamic world, one must first understand that the overwhelming majority do know what the written word of the Quran is. They rely on the interpetations of the Mullah (Preacher). Most cannot read the Quran so this is why I believe we have so many misdirected radical Muslims. I hope this helps.

Posted by: Lacy at October 24, 2006 10:01 AM
Comment #189868

How is the vile, horrible and murderous video of one of our soldiers being killed by a hate filled terrorist, promoting terror?
When Americans see this video it makes us hate terrorists and what they stand for even more.
Blame the liberals is sooooooooooooo old. It’s not going to work any more.
Blame Democrats and Republicans for the mess this country is in.
The GOP majority has had a chance to move this country forward. They failed. The Democrats stood by and watched like weaklings afraid of all the chest-bumping super patriots that arose from the 9/11 attacks.
Video that shows terrorists killing Americans does not help their cause it just highlights our need to get Bin Laden and the failed, misguided policies this administration has pushed in Iraq and other parts of the world.
“Lefties” “Libs” “Cut and runners” are names thrown out there when folks really have nothing to say besides “I’ll out-shout you and that makes me seem right.”
Did the constant video showing planes hitting the twin towers promote terrorism?
When Osama Bin Laden puts a video out that essentially threatens death to Americans, does that promote terror?
No, they do just the opposite.
All of us “Liberal, cut and runner, anti-troop, lefty, socialists” see the name calling thing for what it is.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 24, 2006 10:15 AM
Comment #189870

Phx8

The Soviets lost in Afghanistan because president Reagan supplied support and stinger missiles that negated their air power. Absent those things, they probably would have held on. Of course the whole evil empire was crumbling, so I do not suppose they would still be there and we might be in a very similar situation anyway.

Posted by: Jack at October 24, 2006 10:23 AM
Comment #189871

So here we go again with the same old mis direction from the groupthink of far right chickenhawks. The media is liberal, the quagmire in Iraq is the same as the “war on terror” and its the liberals fault that the “stay the course” strategy has been and still is a miserable failure. Yet they are patriotic and the rest of us are traitors. George Orwell would be proud chikenhawks real proud.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 24, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #189873

What CNN did is not treason, but it was foolish, because of the source of the video, and giving the source (terrorists) a venue for the tape they produced. It would have been better if CNN had said we received a tape showing this, but we refuse to air it; we refuse to give terrorists anything.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 24, 2006 10:35 AM
Comment #189875

Just a few general responses…

Context, context, context. FoxNews did not rebroadcast the insurgent video. The news piece was about whether or not CNN had “crossed the line” by broadcasting enemy propoganda. Apparently, some Republicans are calling for CNN to be “de-embedded.”

Such venom from the liberal intelligentsia! But I couldn’t help but notice that my main points were not refuted. Liberals see nothing wrong with abortion on demand, gay marriage, or the transgenerational subsidization of the poor.

It’s true that I haven’t posted in a while. I don’t blog for a living. I don’t blog obsessively, either. I post “when the spirit moves me,” as my dear departed grandmother used to say.

Posted by: Chris at October 24, 2006 10:42 AM
Comment #189876

This video brings me back to the 60’s and arguments over whether we should be shown combat video including our casualties. Now, Bush just said we’ve entered the Iraqi equivalent of the Tet Offensive. Whoever said there was no comparison between iraq and Viet Nam is now being shown to have been wrong. Where will this generations Kent State be?

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 24, 2006 10:43 AM
Comment #189877
But I couldn’t help but notice that my main points were not refuted.

Oh, those were your main points? The examples given in the middle of a middle paragraph? Not what you lead and ended with (calling a major news organization traitors)? And not what took the majority of the piece (giving excuses for why you’ll lose the debate)? What a load of crap.

This is the same “tactic” you used in the thread resulting from your scare post about the “imminent” second 9/11: when we dismantle your primary point, you claim that the minor point in your rant was actually the main point.

If those were really your main points, then you should have started with them, ended with them, or focused on them. That you didn’t means you’re either incredibly inept at getting your idea across, or you know you’ve lost and you’re trying desperately to hold on by putting all your hope on a tangent.

Learn how to write, or learn how to debate. Learning both would be preferable.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 10:50 AM
Comment #189879

d.a.n.

It would have been better if CNN had said we received a tape showing this, but we refuse to air it; we refuse to give terrorists anything.

How do you know this sniper is a terrorist, not just an insurgeant? Afterall, he’s targetting foreign soldiers who are occupying another country.

Since when sniping a soldier is a terrorist act in a conflict!?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 24, 2006 10:57 AM
Comment #189881

Sorry for unbalanced blockquote.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 24, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #189882

Oh, and Chris, Ware “breathlessly narrated”? Give me a break.
I was breathless, reliveing the nightmare of a time past. It deeply hurts to watch our brothers get wounded or killed. But the truth hurts and people on the right need to wake up and accept their responsibility in this nightmare. Rather than childishly blameing their fellow Americans who happen to have a differing opinion and calling them the traitors…Grow up already

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 24, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #189883

War is ugly, Chris. If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen and stop pussyfooting around with the media. Tell GW Bush to stop playing into the enemy’s hand by playing politics with our troops. Why hasn’t he fired Rumsfeld yet and started a plan to extricate us from this mess? Then after you deal with the primary problem, perhaps there’ll be time to deal with your petty ante critique of the media.

Posted by: gergle at October 24, 2006 11:03 AM
Comment #189886

Lawnboy,
What you said.

Chris,
Trent specifically refuted your points, impeached your source, and cited supporting evidence. Worse yet, you never attempted to correct the inaccurate link for your article. I had to post it for you. Worst of all, it is rude and discourteous to pretend Trent did not address your point.

Wait. Worst of worst of all, you pretend sentences in the middle of your article are unrefuted because they were unaddressed. The throwaways about gay marriage, abortion, & welfare have nothing to do with your main point, which normally people present in their topic sentence, first paragraph, and summarize in their conclusion.

People like Trent and Lawnboy are giving you good advice. Rather than taking the criticism from an ideological opponent as a personal affront, I would suggest learning and improving your ability to present a point of view and debate it.

Posted by: phx8 at October 24, 2006 11:11 AM
Comment #189887

phx,

Thanks. I’m not surprised that we agree, but you even managed to say it nicely :)

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 11:19 AM
Comment #189889

Pilsner,

When I see such things, I don’t want to cut and run. I want to see our troops take off the gloves and kill every last one of those monsters.

Do you ask yourself once what if the gloves are already off?
What next? Nuking Iraq?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 24, 2006 11:27 AM
Comment #189890

Chris,

“You would have to be very intelligent to convince yourself that gay marriage poses no threat whatsoever to traditional family values;”
How?
Will straight people all turn gay and leave their spouses?
Do married gay people suddenly become hostile and attack straight married couples?
Will gay people, once they’re married come into our back yards and whisper into our familiy’s ears that we should change our values until we are brainwashed by them.
Oh I know. It says so in the Bible. It also says that a man built a boat and was able to fit 2 of every species of animal from around the world in this boat and none of them ate each other. Great source.

“that abortion on demand is not a murderous, barbaric form of birth control”

When did any “liberal” ask for or defend “abortion on demand?”
I think it is called reproductive rights for women.
Abortion on demand is a far right sound bite.
Do you have a right to wear a condom?
Do you have a right to a vasectomy?
Women have a right to terminate a pregnancy that they see as harmful to their lives, futures and family.
Do you see drive thru abortion clinics? No
Some people like to judge others because it makes them feel better about themselves. Sometimes it helps to mask hidden sexual abnormalities in ones self. Using God to justify their passing judgement when the true nature of real Christianity is not to judge and to love thy neighbor invalidates alot of their arguments.
Todays’ “Conservatives” are just that. I judge you as inferior. I judge you as unfit to have rights. Who do these people think they are? God?
BTW this was not the point of your piece but I couldn’t resist responding to such divisive and far right points of view.

“trans-generational subsidization of the able-bodied poor does not breed contempt, resentment, self-loathing, helplessness, hopelessness … a seemingly endless cycle of dependency and despair.”

Parroting talking points and sound bites from Rush and Ann Coulter is a sure way to undermine your argument and get people not to take you seriously.

GOP slashed college aid, medical drug price choices, they tried to kill social security, increased wealth disparity to all time levels, kill programs designed to help the poor and elderly and the Democrats are hurting the poor?
You’re funny.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 24, 2006 11:29 AM
Comment #189891

CNN should be allowed to air whatever type of crap they want and the people should be able to decide what they watch on their own.
IMO, what CNN did wasn’t so much as treasonous as that of the reporter. Can you imagine being able to sit idley by while the enemy your own country is at war with, targeted and shot/killed one of your fellow Americans? THAT would be treasonous.

Liberal media? Only partisan hacks would view it any different.

Posted by: kctim at October 24, 2006 11:31 AM
Comment #189892

Wars are not fought and won by reasonable or logical men. No reasonable person would willingly march off to war unless he was motivated by a cause greater than himself. This simple truth is lost to many liberals today. Liberals do not understand why anyone would be willing to fight and die for what they consider to be a senseless cause, and any cause that does not advance their agenda is considered “senseless.” This is also a reflection of the hedonistic nature of liberalism today. Self-sacrifice for the greater good is anathema to hedonism. “What’s in it for me?” seems to be the liberal mantra.

Wars are fought and won by passionate men who believe in a cause greater than themselves, and are willing to die for it. The jihadists have unhesitatingly demonstrated their willingness to die in order to advance a perverted and twisted interpretation of the Koran (Quran?). Our soldiers have demonstrated their willingness to sacrifice themselves on the altar of freedom, and I honor their sacrifice by attacking those who seek to undermine their efforts. CNN’s airing of enemy propoganda is not an isolated event, but simply the latest in a long string of reports that seek to undermine our efforts in Iraq in particular and the global War on Terror in general.

Posted by: Chris at October 24, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #189894
“What’s in it for me?” seems to be the liberal mantra.

Since this is obviously supposed to be a bad thing (based on your tone), I can only conclude that you are opposed to Capitalism, the economic system based on everyone being encouraged to ask “What’s in it for me?”

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #189896

I just have one question.

If it’s factual/true, is it propaganda?

Posted by: womanmarine at October 24, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #189897

The Republican Talking Point:
Americans cannot win wars if they know how terrible war really is.

The Truth:
Saving Private Ryan. How does a movie that shows the violence of the Normandy Landing at Omaha Beach manage to stoke people’s patriotism, and raise people’s pride in the exploits of WWII, if that is true?

Because Americans could sympathize with the soldiers. It’s not for nothing that people evoke the The Greatest Generation when talking about the trials of today.

What the Republicans fail to understand is that there is no serious movement in America that is hostile to our soldiers, and therefore, few people cheering on the deaths of these soldiers.

What they also fail to understand is how much more inured to violence Americans are, especially this generation, which can access truly gruesome material. Trust me, this is a generation far more able to take the realities of war. But this is not something the Republicans have taken advantage of. Instead, fixated on blaming the media for their problems, they tell everybody that if the media shows what’s really going on, it does a disservice. to the soldiers.

This, however, flies in the face of one of the most extraordinary successes of the war’s PR: embedded reporting! The realities of war did not faze people. It kept them connected to their soldiers, and prevented Saddam from employing propaganda tactics. His spokesman didn’t get the nickname Comical Ali for nothing; our video showed him pontificating on how they were beating us like a red-headed stepchild, while we were driving tanks down the highways of Baghdad.

Such effective coverage only becomes a problem for an adminstration that hasn’t effectively dealt with the realities of war itself. Things were going just fine until the failings of Bush and Rumsfeld’s plan started showing. You cannot blame the media for reporting what’s going on. That’s their job, regardless of how they lean, or if they lean.

My advice to the Republicans is to treat this as no less newsworthy than the video by the “headcutters”, and no less useful. Why not make your article about those cowardly creeps taking potshots at our men? Why act as if the insurgent’s interpretation is the only one?

Maybe the real problem is that the GOP can’t handle the truth itself. They are trying to pull off a miracle with the coverage instead of pulling off a success with a change in the direction of their efforts. They are so focused on trying to prove themselves right that they will deride and deny anything that gets in the way of that. Because they will not give up on that, and because their party currently has majority control of Congress, and control of the Executive, America is forced to keep a course it sees quite clearly as a failure.

When is the core of the GOP going to admit that the most discouraging thing about this war is not the coverage but their continued failure of policy?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #189898

Dave1

“Now, Bush just said we’ve entered the Iraqi equivalent of the Tet Offensive”

You do realize that the Tet offensive was a major victory for us, don’t you? It wasn’t the army that lost it was the politicians and the media at home that lost.

The Tet offensive was the Norths battle of the Bulge, an all out make or break battle an they lost.

Posted by: Keith at October 24, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #189901
Jack wrote: Many liberals are smart enough to win arguments and duels of logic. I had a philosophy professor in college who was an avowed communist, and fiercely proud of it. He was so logical and so smart that he could convince you an arrow in flight never reaches its target. Very smart, very logical, and completely wrong. And that, to me, is comtemporary American liberalism in a nutshell - At times very smart, very logical, but still completely wrong.

HHHMMmmmmm … look who’s talking?

The fact is, some on BOTH sides do this.

These old, tired type of generalizations and demonizing of the OTHER party can be seen from blind, brainwashed loyalists on BOTH sides.

It is mere petty, partisan warfare. Politicians love it, and their hacks love to wallow in it. Afterall, it is VERY seductive and effective.
Why?
Because it distracts YOU from your OWN party’s irresponsibility; because it is easier to blame the OTHER party, than face up to your OWN party’s problems. Because it allows irresponsible incumbent politicians to control voters, and keep those blind loyalist voters perpetually distracted from looking inward; from introspecition. Partisan warfare is their all-time favorite detractor to perpetuate the never-ending control over the circular pattern of behavior.

The fact is, BOTH parties are irresponsible.
BOTH parties are the sum of their parts ((a)irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way incumbent politicians, controlled by (b)elitists that abuse vast wealth and power, more than (c)the largest group (voters) that keep re-electing those very same incumbent politicians that use and abuse the voters; giving incumbents a cu$hy 90% re-election rate).

This type of partisan warfare may fire up the base voters; the most hard-core blind loyalists, but it is losing voters (like me, my entire family, neighbors, and relatives; all former Republicans) that are not only starting to see through it, and reject it, but find it disgustingly contrived and manipulative.

Some voters (granted, not all; not many) in BOTH parties are starting to catch on to the petty partisan warfare. Even some Republicans are watching Bush run all about saying “stay the course”, “Democrats are the party of cut-and-run”, “Democrats are the obstructionist party”, “Democrats are going to raise your taxes”, “Democrats have no ideas”, blah, blah, blah, blah. And I voted for Bush in 2004. Now, it’s true the Democrat politicians don’t have much of a plan either. Yes, some of what Republicans say is true, and vice-versa.

This nation needs voters to be more educated.

Any voting nation needs voters to be as educated as possible.

Philippe Houdoin wrote: How do you know this sniper is a terrorist, not just an insurgeant?
OK, replace “terrorist” with “enemy/insurgent/terrorist/guerrilla/revolutionist”. I suppose, since the U.S. invaded Iraq on flimsy, flawed (or trumped-up) intelligence, that viewpoint can be justified. Sadly, the U.S. would like to leave Iraq now, but it is difficult because Iraq is a mess, and we broke it, and some consequently are saying we now have an obligation or need to stay and fix it. What will happen in Iraq and the middle-east if the U.S. pulls out immediately? If the majority of Iraqis want the U.S. now, perhaps we should? We broke it, but is it right to risk any more American lives to try and fix something that may not even be fixable? Iraq has 26 million people. Iraqis have not yet stepped up to the plate to secure their own nation, and may never do so. Iraqis are so divided, and uncooperative, it may be futile. Sending 300,000 more U.S. troops may not even change that. Iraqis may be determined to have their civil war regardless. And, the mismanagement and blunders all along the way are not encouraging. Only now, “stay the course” is turning into “a change of course”, and for political reasons more than military reasons … a major reason why things have gone so badly. When politicians started micro-managing the war, ignoring military commanders, and trying to fight the war on-the-cheap (trying to down-play and avoid visibility that might decrease support for the war by most Americans), it was doomed to a myriad of failures and blunders.
  • Posted by: d.a.n at October 24, 2006 12:17 PM
    Comment #189902

    Yes, Keith, the Tet Offensive was a military loss for the north. However, Vietnam was a war in which winning militarily didn’t mean winning the war.

    It’s a lot like what’s happening in Iraq. I think everyone acknowledges that there’s not a single military battle that the U.S. military would lose there. However, the fight is much bigger than just the military, and the overall fight is one we’re far from winning.

    The Tet offensive was the Norths battle of the Bulge, an all out make or break battle an they lost.

    And yet they won.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 12:18 PM
    Comment #189903

    womanmarine-

    Thats a great question. I think propaganda can be truth or lie. In today’s news obsessed culture, I think most propaganda is probably true, just over-amplified or manipulated. For example, we constantly hear stories about both amazingly heroic and startingly cowardly deeds by US soldiers in Iraq. These are definitely legitimate news stories, as the American public has a right to know what is going on over there. But once the story tries to lead you to believe that the situation depicted is typical of all events in Iraq, it becomes propaganda. Both sides are guilty of this, as are most news outlets.

    Posted by: David S at October 24, 2006 12:20 PM
    Comment #189904

    Chris-
    You can’t defeat the enemy overseas, so you try and defeat your enemies here. You turn on your fellow Americans to make up for your failure to find the right battlefield, much less choose the right strategy to address the battlefield you chose.

    You can’t hide from your failures in this day and age. If you want control of the media situation, direct attempts to control things will only serve the enemy by creating nasty, dispirit surprises, and by creating new opportunities for the government to discredit itself. A government taking this course makes itself look like it can’t get the job done, and is instead resorting to deceptions.

    Solve the problem, and you solve most of your issues with America’s perceptions.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2006 12:21 PM
    Comment #189905

    Keith,

    Yes, I am aware that Bushie selected the analogy since Tet was a major US MILITARY victory. It will enable the Freeper nation to claim, yet again, that it wasn’t chicken hawk incompetence that lost us the Iraq 2nd War, but it was the “traitorous liberal and th eleftist media”.

    The North won that war, remember?

    Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 24, 2006 12:22 PM
    Comment #189906

    Dave1

    The North didn’t win they lost and they knew it. They also knew from watching waht was going on back in America that if they held on long enpugh we would “cut and run”

    Posted by: Keith at October 24, 2006 12:24 PM
    Comment #189908

    Ah, “the cut and run” reason of why we lost the Viet Nam War. Yeah, sure, keep telling yourself that. It’s alot like Dorothy, except Oz was the dream.

    Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 24, 2006 12:30 PM
    Comment #189912

    It really must be great to have a selective memory. Does anyone remember the beginning of the war when fox news had Geroldoooo imbedded with a military unit. Remember when he was giving away the Americans position by drawing it in the sand. I never heard a peep from the right about he or fox news being traitors. Did our troops refuse to protect him after he gave their position away.

    For more than two years I have heard that there are two options for Iraq. It’s either the patriotic, conservative, republican ” Stay The Course” or the democrat,liberal, traitor ” Cut And Run. Now we here from the White House that the Presidents policy is no longer stay the course. The President went even further in a recent interview and said that his policy has never been stay the course even though thay have him on tape saying just that at least 6 times. Does this mean that the President is now a liberal, traitor, cut and runner? He must have gone over to the enemy because remember there are only two options in Iraq.

    Posted by: jlw at October 24, 2006 12:39 PM
    Comment #189913

    womanmarine,

    I just have one question.

    If it’s factual/true, is it propaganda?

    Yep, if truth is your enemy too.

    Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 24, 2006 12:42 PM
    Comment #189915

    philippe,

    very funny, even for a guy with a French name …

    marine,

    propoganda is a campaign of information that supports ones cause or ideology. It dosn’t refer to the veracity of claims. Although in recent times it certainly has meant the selling of untruths. e.g. (sorry, can’t resist) see campaigns of GW Bush.

    Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 24, 2006 12:48 PM
    Comment #189916
    propoganda is a campaign of information that supports ones cause or ideology

    So the premise here is that any factual news that someone doesn’t like must be propaganda.

    Interesting.

    I would guess then that most news is propaganda.

    Posted by: womanmarine at October 24, 2006 12:56 PM
    Comment #189918

    “propoganda is a campaign of information that supports ones cause or ideology”

    Well said Dave1, I would say it is a campaign of misinformation and information though.

    “I would guess then that most news is propaganda”

    Which is why the left feels Fox is a conservative mouthpiece and the right feels all other stations are liberal.

    Posted by: kctim at October 24, 2006 1:05 PM
    Comment #189919

    Nothing new. Neither should it be a surprise.

    Vast leftwing conspiracy?

    It’s a fact that the news media (mainstream) support liberal democrats; and even more so during election.

    Media focus is now aimed at stories helpful to democrats and harmful to republicans to help democrats win the election.

    Do democrats and media also favor terrorists over republicans and America? Duh, yeah.

    It makes it easy to pick a side. No gray areas.

    Posted by: Jimmy at October 24, 2006 1:08 PM
    Comment #189921
    Do democrats and media also favor terrorists over republicans and America?

    What can you say to that? Unfreakingbelievable.

    Posted by: womanmarine at October 24, 2006 1:10 PM
    Comment #189922

    womanmarine,

    Worse, he uses the word “Duh”, as though the idea that half the country hates the country is obvious.

    It’s amazing the level of hate and lies that Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, etc. have spread in the past couple decades.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 1:15 PM
    Comment #189925

    marine,

    I would guess then that most news is propaganda.
    For Chris and some of his supporters it would seem to be the case. As for “jimmy”, I try not feed to trolls.

    kc,
    Alternatively, it’s a true statement if you believe that the media has a specific agenda. Or if you define “profit” as an ideology.(a topic for a whole other thread). The problem I have with Fox (since you brought it up :-) is they present alot of opinions as facts. And those opinions are clearly (r)wing. Whereas, the respected media present news with at least an attempt at bias being removed from the actual verbiage. It is difficult to find widespread abuse by the media of news for a “liberal agenda”, especially since 9/11. Just because the news isn’t good for the republicans, doesn’t make it an agenda.

    Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 24, 2006 1:17 PM
    Comment #189926

    LawnBoy, et. al.

    Here’s an interesting link

    http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/0609/weilera.php

    Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 24, 2006 1:19 PM
    Comment #189927

    Propoganda CAN involve INFORMATION (factual)

    If one only shows what is beneficial for ones own arguement/position/whatever — and purposely omits any “inconvenient truths” that undermine your position.
    So, even facts can be used for Propoganda
    (even without omission — taken out of context is another method)

    Rove is the master of all of the above.
    (as well as the good ol fashioned, just plain lying and saying the lie often enough that the “true believers” believe that load of crap)

    Posted by: Russ at October 24, 2006 1:20 PM
    Comment #189929

    “they present alot of opinions as facts. And those opinions are clearly (r)wing. Whereas, the respected media present news with at least an attempt at bias being removed from the actual verbiage”

    Ah, but Dave1, others see the exact opposite.
    While you find it difficult to find a “liberal agenda,” I find it quit easy and have since way before 9/11.
    I am sure it is easy for you to find a right wing agenda on Fox though, right?

    There is a reason why many on the right do not trust CNN, CBS, NPR etc… and there is a reason why those on the left do not trust Fox…….the content does not endorse their personal beliefs nor does it resemble actual news in a way the respective side wishes to view it.

    Posted by: kctim at October 24, 2006 1:38 PM
    Comment #189931

    “Stay the course” has now become a rallying cry for democrats! All a democratic candidate has to do to go up in the polls now is put an ad on TV showing their republican opponant parroting the president with those three words and it is enough to turn people off and into believing the republican, much like his leadership in the white house, is out of touch with reality.

    It goes to show that even the age-old trusted tactic of treating people like they are stupid doesn’t seem to be working. They have oversimplified themselves into a corner and then they overplayed their hand. They overestimated the public’s willingness to continue to spend massive amounts of lives and money just for the benefit of a strong soundbite. And now, trying to provide the reasoning behind the president’s policies during this campaign is becoming political suicide. Any political capital the republicans had after 9/11 by virtue of their being the “tougher” party has been completely squandered away now that it is obvious that “stay the course” meant “we have no clue what to do”. In that context, “cut and run” doesn’t sound like a bad option. It sounds more like “be smart”. And I’ll tell you, I am having a lot of fun watching candidates all across the country try like hell to avoid having to answer why they are against a policy of being smart.

    Posted by: Kevin23 at October 24, 2006 1:46 PM
    Comment #189932

    Lawnboy,

    What is really sad is that the right wing shout artists also believe that the right wing is a bunch of gullible nut cases, which is why they make such absurd arguments. They are laughing up their collective sleeves all the way to the bank.

    Posted by: gergle at October 24, 2006 1:47 PM
    Comment #189933

    Holy crap! Now “intelligent” is an insult. Here’s a conversation from the future:

    “Hey, man, you’re intelligent.”

    “Screw you, bastard! I’m not intelligent, I’m an imbecile. In fact, I’m a moron.”

    “No way, man. You’re no moron. I’ve known morons, and you ain’t one of them. You are so smart.”

    “Oh, yeah, well you’re sweet and kind.”

    “What?! You take that back before I kick you in the nuts.”

    “Yeah, that’s right, you’re thoughtful and considerate and…”

    “Don’t say it! I’m warning you!”

    “…and LOGICAL!”

    “You asked for it.”

    OOff! Blam! Sock! Crash!

    Anyway, I’m so glad the Conservative Morons running the government. It’s so much better than having liberal smart people in charge.

    Posted by: Jeff at October 24, 2006 1:55 PM
    Comment #189934

    Has anyone stopped to ask why so many liberals are spending time posting on a conservative blog? With the extensive internet campaigns of the left widely available in the form of blogs, web sites, etc., why would one want to get on a blog with people who inherently disagree with one’s ideology?

    Look beneath the surface at the electronic information campaigns funded by Soros and others and you will realize that the liberals posting are employed to do so. Further, the strategy they are attempting to execute is to argue vigoroulsy with the most ardent conservatives in hopes of swaying moderates who are undecided.

    Those of you that are attempting to share conservative ideas and information are being used.

    Posted by: Rourke's Ghost at October 24, 2006 1:56 PM
    Comment #189937

    “Many liberals are smart enough to win arguments and duels of logic.”

    Exactly. Liberals may be smart, they may be better arguers and even have logic on their side. But they’re still wrong! I’m with you Chris. We may not be as smart as them, but we have something they’ll never have: faith. Faith that even though we seemed to have lost the confidence of almost every American, we’re still right. Faith that even though every single prediction we’ve made about the war has been incorrect, we’re still right. Faith that even though the list of indicted Republican leaders in our government has shadowed almost every other administration in American history, we’re still right. And if we’re systematically voted out of office in the coming years for the Demoncratic smear machine, painting us all as greedy, corrupt and racist, we’ll still know that Jesus loves us more than them and anyone who disagrees is, in your words, a traitor.

    Keep an upper chin. I know things seem bleek and it’s easy to go off half-cocked without really thinking things through, but this time shall too pass and we’ll be back in control exactly how God would want it.

    Posted by: Sarah Cynthia Sylvia Stout at October 24, 2006 2:05 PM
    Comment #189938


    Rourke’s Ghost: I must be the dumb liberal posting here. Please tell me how I can get some of Soros money.

    Posted by: jlw at October 24, 2006 2:06 PM
    Comment #189939

    Rourke’s Ghost,

    Has anyone stopped to ask why so many liberals are spending time posting on a conservative blog?

    The reason a lot of liberals comment on this blog is that it’s just one part of WatchBlog. There’s also a Liberal/Democrat section here and a Third Party/Independent section. Because of the unique nature of the site, you get people from all sides of the spectrum debating issues and posts. You as a conservative are welcome on the Liberals threads. It’s not like most political blogs in which only one side is presented and debated.

    With the extensive internet campaigns of the left widely available in the form of blogs, web sites, etc., why would one want to get on a blog with people who inherently disagree with one’s ideology?

    Because some people actually like debate. I know that I could go to a site that would just tell me that everything I think is correct, but here I’m challenged, and I learn.

    If you prefer not to have to deal with the rest of the country that disagrees with you, there are plenty of websites that will let you hide in your echo chamber.

    Look beneath the surface at the electronic information campaigns funded by Soros and others and you will realize that the liberals posting are employed to do so.

    That is laughable. Look at the facts of the situation instead of spinning conspiracy fantasies, please.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 2:11 PM
    Comment #189940
    We may not be as smart as them, but we have something they’ll never have: faith.

    Ahhh…. truthiness, where it’s not important what actually is true, but what we want to be true.

    I hope that works out for you the next time you wish the stop light is green, not red.

    Thanks, Sarah Cynthia Sylvia Stout

    Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 2:16 PM
    Comment #189942


    I awoke in the night and I heard the voice of my Heavenly Father say to me “George! Go forth and slaughter the Iraqis.

    Posted by: jlw at October 24, 2006 2:20 PM
    Comment #189943

    Keith,

    The Viet Cong didn’t look to America, and decide to hold on. The Vietnamese are an exceedingly proud people. Particularly about their land. They were content with the idea of a war lasting 100 years. Generations were to be sacrificed to protect their homeland. Children were being raised in the hopes that they could contribute to the cause.

    It is stereotypical squawk-boxing from the right to call it “cut-and-run”. We couldn’t provide the resources necessary to fight such an enemy. Vietnam, like Iraq, was a war that was not going to be won merely with military might. Cultural understanding with a globally sensitive perspective was required then and it was required for this war. Lacking such perspective, and allowing our strategy to stagnate have created a situation that can only be described as a quagmire.

    Posted by: Jeaves at October 24, 2006 2:26 PM
    Comment #189945

    sarrah cynthia sylvia stout,

    Why do they get all the faith? No fair.
    Facts are boring.
    The only way I know of to escape reality is totally illegal.
    I guess I can go GOP for a minute. Here we go.
    Wow! Look at all the pretty colors.(Inagodadavida playing in the background). It’s cool here. We’re winning the war in Iraq. The country is United and we all drive BMWs here. Here even poor people invest in the stock market. It’s beautiful here.
    Aw man I’m coming down. I want to keep my GOP buzz going.
    Darn, I’m back in reality again.

    Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 24, 2006 2:40 PM
    Comment #189946
    There is a reason why many on the right do not trust CNN, CBS, NPR etc… and there is a reason why those on the left do not trust Fox…….the content does not endorse their personal beliefs nor does it resemble actual news in a way the respective side wishes to view it. Posted by: kctim at October 24, 2006 01:38 PM
    I can agree partially. First, if a journalist presents an article that doesn’t support my world view, I admit I greet their article with doubt and skepticism. The problem, as i stated above, is that Fox uses columnists to present the news, This allows opinions in the same thread as a news article. This allows moth pieces like Limbaugh to pull numbers out of his fat ass to support his interpretation of a news item that satisfies his constituents meed for validation of their world view. I don’t greet those “tidbits” with doubt or skeptisism. I greet those with disgust and disdain.

    I greet all news with some degree of skeptisism. I stopped watching Fox because they were so obviously full of crap and themselves there was no value in it. Although, with Combes actually showing this week that his testicles aren’t completely shrivilled, there’s a chance of the occasional visit. I’v cut way back on mnost domestic news sources and rely now alot on NPR and the BBC. They both give a good sense of honest intellectualism with two different view points. The web also provides alot of news, easily verifiable.

    Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 24, 2006 2:46 PM
    Comment #189947

    Lawn Boy:

    Are you asserting that the tone and tenor of the liberal arguments above are intended solely for the purpose of self-edification and personal growth?

    If your answer is “yes”, could you please share the liberal points of view that have been changed from this process? What conservative points of view do you have now as a result of this conservative blog?

    jlw:

    I can’t give you advice on how you can get money from Mr. Soros. I can, however, give advice on earning high levels of income - Build a successful business and support continued tax cuts.

    Posted by: Rourke's Ghost at October 24, 2006 2:49 PM
    Comment #189949
    Are you asserting that the tone and tenor of the liberal arguments above are intended solely for the purpose of self-edification and personal growth?

    No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that this is a site for debate, and that liberals and conservatives intermingle freely here because the views of both sides are aired by intelligent and passionate believers.

    Unless you have knowledge that someone here is on a payroll, you’re just making up stuff. Please stop.

    If your answer is “yes”, could you please share the liberal points of view that have been changed from this process? What conservative points of view do you have now as a result of this conservative blog?

    No. If you stick around, you’ll see how people grow and change.

    Now please run along to the type of echo chamber you obviously prefer. If you stick around here, though, you might learn something, and it would be good for you.

    Who knows, maybe I’ll learn something from you other than your willingness to make up conspiracies instead of looking around the website you’re on.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 2:55 PM
    Comment #189950

    Dave1
    Again, you have stated why you view Fox as being right leaning and again I would have to say the right views what you listen to as left leaning.
    Your praise of Combes, NPR and the BBC shows how you like your news and others opinions, to be presented to you. With a left slant.

    Re Fox and its columnists - I’m not a big Fox fan, I too prefer independent media, but its not that hard to tell the difference between the news and the opinion shows like H&C. (Does Rush have a show on Fox now? Just curious.)
    What is hard is when the MSM uses misinformation and partials as news in order to push a certain view. And that my friend, is true of ALL media outlets.

    Posted by: kctim at October 24, 2006 3:01 PM
    Comment #189952

    kctim-
    The Right Wing bias on FOX is deliberate, and open. The supposed left-wing bias on other networks is more cherry-picking and complaints about the inevitable unflattering coverage that comes from any news organization doing its job, in my view. Given that Republicans level that charge every time a bad story surfaces or coverage of this president’s efforts turns negative, I see that claims as more of a rhetorical trick to poison the well than a truly profound left-wing slant.

    There’s too much investment on the right in establishing the ideological credentials of a person before establishing the truth or falsity of what they say. What’s more, supposedly liberal media often

    1)cooperates in damaging and embarassing reports on the Democrats (Monica, Whitewater, etc.);

    2)gives Right Wing Think tank members airtime without disclosing the full extent of their partisan loyalties;

    3)Fails to challenge the claims of the politicians on air;

    4)Did not look too deeply into the WMD matters until after the fact;

    5)Provided Bush with plenty of opportunities to push the war;

    and other things. The truth of the matter is, the mainstream media reflects mostly those who watch it and those who run it.

    Keith-
    You keep ignoring a crucial element of morale, both on the homefront, and abroad.

    Progress. Real-world progress. You can’t just ask people to continue to approve of and maintain a war like this without some changes for the better coming from the efforts.

    The GOP has had the chance to do things its way, to have complete control over this war. It still jealously refuses to give up that control.

    And yet, the media, which can only report on what it finds, and the Democrats, who have no control over policy, are the ones the Republicans blame.

    What the Right Wing fails to see of this recapitulation of the hatred post-Vietnam, is just how much they are replaying the fatal mistakes that Democrats committed in terms of Vietnam and the media.

    It was a mistake, you see, because the problems the media then and now drew attention to where real. By getting defensive and secretive about what was really going on, they created a bubble, which hid the magnitude of the failures of the war.

    Ultimately, the effect of this was losing the Vietnam war. Morale was lost because nothing we did lead to progress, not because we weren’t shown positive news. Positive news would have come of positive developments. By deliberately parting ways with reality, by deliberately putting those who spoke the truth on one side and our selves on the others, loyal Democrats managed to split their party and harmed the country. The Republicans didn’t help much by adding their own paranoia and divisive politics on top of that.

    You are not helping your country by hurling these accusations. You are failing to confront the truth, to live with it, and to reconcile with your fellow Americans in the hope of getting something done about it. That’s all most of us have wanted.

    Rourke’s Ghost-
    Watchblog, as a whole, is a three column site. Clicking the Emblem would allow you to see that. Both sides can post on each other’s side. Watchblog is meant to be forum, rather than an echo chamber for people’s views.

    We get paid little to nothing for our efforts. I’ve written 230 articles and have never seen one dime for my troubles. These aren’t short ones either, but ones as long as the comments you’ve seen or longer.

    It isn’t money that gives us the stamina to do this, as much as you might like that, as much as it might assuage your fears that Democrats are truly committed this time to winning. No, it’s our commitment to a vision of a better America, and our sadness and anger at what its come to under your party’s leadership.

    You are right about something: Our strategy has been to argue vigorously with Ardent supporters of the GOP and Bush to sway the moderates who are undecided. But we go farther than that, to doing our best to convince those who are of different political stripe of the situation. If our cause was in vain, then we would not have the success we’ve had.

    You see, more than we arguing to sway the moderates, the independents, and the free-thinkers of the Republican party to our side, we have seen the actions of this administration and this congress and the consequences of their actions argue most of the points for us.

    You can spin your conspiracy theories as to why we are winning, but the truth is out there in front of you, if you only choose to see it. What’s lost the Republican party so much support is out there in the open.

    When you decide that being a Republican is about more than defeating the Liberals in every election you can, when you decide that no matter how big or small government is, it should be well-run, then your party might end up finding a more permanent, broader base to win from. For now, the marketplace of the Electorate is punishing the Republican party for failing to understand it.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2006 3:05 PM
    Comment #189953

    If one is here for reasons of edification and debate, they’ll appreciate being aware of the motivations behind some of the entries that have a different purpose.

    If you don’t like me pointing this out, then feel free to ignore me. I won’t be offended.

    Posted by: Rourke's Ghost at October 24, 2006 3:07 PM
    Comment #189954

    Stephen Daugherty:

    The mainstream media is certainly doing its best to condition all of us that the marketplace is speaking toward liberalism. As in the past, I suspect the election results will surprise the people who take stock in that.

    Posted by: Rourke's Ghost at October 24, 2006 3:17 PM
    Comment #189955

    Rourke’s Ghost:

    And who, specifically, are the paid posters? Without that information you are blowing smoke.

    Posted by: womanmarine at October 24, 2006 3:17 PM
    Comment #189956
    If one is here for reasons of edification and debate, they’ll appreciate being aware of the motivations behind some of the entries that have a different purpose.

    But why assume there’s a financial motivation? Stephen posted right before you with a great response to your question.

    If you don’t like me pointing this out, then feel free to ignore me.

    But that’s not what you did. If you had just questioned why there were a surprising number of liberals here, then I wouldn’t mind. I’ve answered similar queries before. If you had simply asked if any of us were paid, then I wouldn’t mind. What I did mind was your baseless accusation of financial motive behind people being here. Soros is really a boogeyman for you guys, isn’t he?

    I’m no longer an editor here, but I was for over a year and posted 30-some articles. Since I stopped being an editor (because I wasn’t coming up with enough original content - Stephen amazes me), I’ve been a frequent commenter on some of the threads.

    I’ve never received any compensation in any tangible form for my participation here. My thoughts here are my own, not purchased by anyone.

    Is it possible that someone here is posting for money? It’s possible, I guess, but I’ve never had reason to suspect it, despite 3 years being here. That you jumped immediately to such suspicion so quickly says much more about you than it does about us.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 3:20 PM
    Comment #189959

    LawnBoy

    You’ve made a fair point. Soros has been used as a wet-blanket talking point for a long time - I shouldn’t have use it here.

    My contention is there is more to a number of the liberal entries than healthy debate. If you look through the posts, one can see the diffference between vigorous, robust debate and the other type of post that I pointed out.

    So close to an election, its healthy to point out the difference.

    I suspect you’ll see some of the same thing from some conservatives on the liberal section of the site.

    Debate is great. But,no one likes to be conditioned. There is a difference.

    Posted by: Rourke's Ghost at October 24, 2006 3:37 PM
    Comment #189960

    Rourke’s Ghost,

    Which posts are you talking about? I think you’re reading way too much into differences in style.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 3:39 PM
    Comment #189961

    What’s funny is we apparently have had liberal media and lefty nut jobs indoctrinating our youth for generations. Which, of course, brough us… A right wing president, a right wing congress, and a right wing supreme court. Even if I accepted the idea that we’re being bombarded with lefty idealogy, it doesn’t seem to be having an effect. Nope. We’re stuck with a conservative government running our country into the ground.

    Posted by: Shaun at October 24, 2006 3:55 PM
    Comment #189962

    Rourke’s Ghost,

    I can’t speak for others, but I tend to read and comment in the Red Column more than the others because I know I can learn more from those with whom I generally disagree. Heck, I actually like some article writers and commentators I often disagree with.

    I’m under no illusions that I can change the minds of the truly partisan, but I know that my own mind can be swayed on specific issues. I’ve learned a lot on Watchblog; the fact that posters come from the entire political spectrum can potentially (and sometimes does) raise the level of discussion. Have you ever read political blogs of whatever stripe in which most posters agree? The level of discussion is generally low because everyone already buys into the primary assumptions.

    It’s the same reason I listen to right-wing radio. It can be infuriating, but every now and then I learn something. And I learn what will become the talking points of many on the right.

    I’m also interested in debate, and have no problem pointing out fallacies in this column or in the others. Even my philosophical brethen are wrong, sometimes, just as I’m sometimes wrong.

    That’s my agenda. It’s mundane, I admit. No big conspiracy here; no secret plan to infiltrate or to spread subversive ideas.

    Posted by: Trent at October 24, 2006 3:59 PM
    Comment #189963

    Um, you know, if some posters are being paid, I’d love to know by whom. I wouldn’t mind a few extra bucks.

    Posted by: Trent at October 24, 2006 4:03 PM
    Comment #189964

    I wish they paid me, I would post a lot more!!

    Posted by: womanmarine at October 24, 2006 4:04 PM
    Comment #189966

    Rourke’s Ghost,
    I have never been paid, nor am I affiliated with any organization. From time to time I comment. That’s it.

    People may change their minds when considering a different point of view. Some might be uncertain, and looking for a persuasive case. Personally, I enjoy seeing other viewpoints & the occasional give and take.

    Posted by: pnx8 at October 24, 2006 4:16 PM
    Comment #189967

    Rourke’s Ghost-
    Your underlying assumption seems to be that your politics, once presented to a person, make about as much sense to them, as it does to you, and that only by having a perverse, weak, disloyal or evil personality could one stand to disagree.

    If nothing else, I think the lesson of the last few years is that persuasion takes work, takes commitment. If there is one thing we have learned from your side these past few years, it’s to stand up for ourselves, for what we believe in. We’ve had no choice.

    As a consequence, we are closer to a comeback than ever, because we don’t let a lot of your claims go unchallenged anymore. Under such scrutiny, much of what you’ve claimed to be true has turned out otherwise.

    The election results might very well be a surprise to both of us. Just how big is an open question.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2006 4:20 PM
    Comment #189968

    kctim,

    I like NPR because I get a heck of a lot more verifiable information from it than I get from other radio shows. It doesn’t strike me as left leaning, but simply as straightforward reporting. The opinion sections are easy to detect.

    But let’s assume for a moment that most reporters do lean to the left. That was actually the truism in newsrooms when I was a journalist, you know: liberal journalists working for conservative owners. The obvious question is why? I have no empirical data to back this up, but I always suspected it was because journalists (the good ones, anyway) are idealists, just like teachers (again, the good ones, anyway). Why else would someone choose to take a low paying job? It’s too easy to say journalists are too incompentent to take other jobs (unless you are speaking of broadcast journalists — I admit to a bias against them: often a lot of flash and no substance). But in my experience, journalists generally are much more skilled at writing and research than the general public. In my opinion, the glib condemnation of journalists is silly.

    If more republicans would be willing to work for crummy wages, there would be more right leaning reporters. Just my two cents.

    Posted by: Trent at October 24, 2006 4:23 PM
    Comment #189969

    Rourke’s Ghost-
    Nobody can condition you against your will. You can only be so changed through a lack of strength and structure in your own beliefs, or a conflict between them and the stronger persuasive force of reality itself.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2006 4:25 PM
    Comment #189973

    Some Illegal Immigrant wrote

    It also says that a man built a boat and was able to fit 2 of every species of animal from around the world in this boat and none of them ate each other. Great source.

    Do they have zoos in Mexico? You know with lions and zebras seperated by barriers probably like they had on the ark? If not, why don’t you go back home where you belong and build one?

    Posted by: Whitey at October 24, 2006 4:54 PM
    Comment #189975

    Note: Whitey is an obvious troll. Please don’t feed the trolls.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 5:02 PM
    Comment #189976

    “The Right Wing bias on FOX is deliberate, and open”

    So is the left wing bias on other channels Stephen, but you do not see it as bias. The same can be said of many FOX viewers.
    I can watch any show at any time and point out a left bias. I’m sure you could do the same with FOX.
    As individuals, we are less inclined to view something as being biased if we agree with it and tend to view a bias when we disagree.
    How many do you view as being biased and how many do you view as being “fair?”

    Posted by: kctim at October 24, 2006 5:13 PM
    Comment #189980

    “CNN is doing everything possible to help their allies in Iraq win the war against the American infidels.”

    sounds like a run-of-the-mill conspiracy theory to me; extreme and unsubstantiated.

    “In a time of war, it is treasonous for any American news agency to air enemy propoganda showing American soldiers being shot, possibly even killed.”

    ummm, check your constitution. while i agree that such a posting is sick, it is not by any means treason (even in a time of war). this incendiary rhetoric serves no useful purpose.

    cnn is leftist, but the right *owns* fox.
    if you want ‘fair and balanced’ commentary, check msnbc. they employ openly conservative, liberal, and independent thinkers.
    if you want the *news*, check cspan… and formulate opinions for yourselves!

    Posted by: Diogenes at October 24, 2006 6:19 PM
    Comment #189981
    if you want ‘fair and balanced’ commentary, check msnbc.

    I only have nine things to say about this comment: ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!

    Posted by: Duane-o at October 24, 2006 6:24 PM
    Comment #189982


    If Osama is not dead or totally incapacitated, he will come to the republicans rescue. Look for it on the Saturday or Sunday before the election. Again, he will tell us how he wishes good luck to the republicans. Our President will reward him with more converts to his cause. Who would like to a wager on which network will air the tape first. My wager will be on Fox.

    Posted by: jlw at October 24, 2006 6:52 PM
    Comment #189985

    and not one of those nine things bare any relevance to my post whatsoever! honestly, why bother posting?

    tucker carlson, joe scarborough, both openly conservative - chris matthews strikes me as an independent (although admittedly one with right tendencies - he voted for w.) - and keith olbermann is surely liberal (though he denies it). whichever of those categories you fall into, you are represented.

    again, cspan is a much better source for news. but if you want a talking-head to tell you what to believe, msnbc at least makes an honest effort to represent both sides.

    regardless, next time you post, try to have a point. take a stance. back it up, even. it makes it so much more interesting to read!

    Posted by: Diogenes at October 24, 2006 7:05 PM
    Comment #189989

    I knew this was coming! It was only a matter of time before CNN joined the New York Times in Club Traitor.

    Posted by: stubborn conservative at October 24, 2006 7:35 PM
    Comment #189990

    I knew this was coming! It was only a matter of time before CNN joined the New York Times in Club Traitor.

    Posted by: stubborn conservative at October 24, 2006 7:36 PM
    Comment #189994

    My Name Is Roger

    CHRIS ROWAN:

    A wise man once said ” There are two things you cannot argue with….[ IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY ].

    Chris…. just remember that when you received comments like some of those that were made by some of the readers.


    ANDRE M. HERNANDEZ:

    Read Romans 1:21 to 32, and tell me what you think.

    Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican

    Posted by: ROGER at October 24, 2006 7:45 PM
    Comment #189995

    Rourke’s ghost-

    Wow. How constructive your conspiracy theories are. It all makes sense to me now. The paid for liberals run the media and the internet, all so that the “real” people (white, christian conservatives I guess) have to sift through all the misinformation. With this sinister motive and the vast amount of non-power they have, liberals are hell bent on keeping real people in the dark about how they are morally, intellectually and spiritually superior to them. And lets face it, all liberals have ever done is label and oppress people. They’re not to be trusted.

    Anyway, back to reality.

    As a conservative, I really find these kinds of paranoid delusions to do nothing but give credibility to the other side without their having earned it. Nothing is advanced, and the total net effect is to lower the bar.

    CNN is not committing treason by reporting the news. Even if someone could prove they were only selectively reporting the news, it still wouldn’t be anything but news reporting. This kind of unsubstantiated speculation based entirely on personal frustration makes one look nothing but wacko.

    Posted by: Kevin23 at October 24, 2006 7:47 PM
    Comment #189996
    chris matthews strikes me as an independent (although admittedly one with right tendencies - he voted for w.)


    Cindy Sheehan: “We’re not going to cure terrorism and spread peace and good will in the Middle East by killing innocent people … I see Iraq as the base for spreading imperialism….”
    Host Chris Matthews: “Are you considering running for Congress, Cindy?”
    Sheehan: “No, not this time….”
    Matthews: “Okay. Well, I have to tell you, you sound more informed than most U.S. Congresspeople, so maybe you should run.”
    — Exchange on MSNBC’s Hardball, August 15.

    Yeah, sounds real center/right to me.

    What about the fact that Bill O’Reilly takes about twice as many liberal guests on his show as conservatives, when his MessNBC counterpart, Keith Olbermann, only allows those in lockstep with his communist idealogy on his show?

    Posted by: Duane-o at October 24, 2006 7:55 PM
    Comment #189999

    Well, Roger, those verses say that if you don’t worship the God of Paul then God will give you up to all sorts of degrading pleasures. It also says those given up by God deserve to die.

    Moral? Stay away from idols or God with give you up to impurity. Given the language, I’d stay away from crosses! Especially those with a human on them!

    Think what a murdering extremist could justify with those verses!

    Posted by: Trent at October 24, 2006 8:11 PM
    Comment #190000

    Duane-o,

    When did disagreeing with the failed incompetence of the ruling party equal communism? Oh yeah, when you have to resort to insults and name-calling because you have no constructive argument to defend your position.

    Thanks for clarifying.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 8:12 PM
    Comment #190001
    regardless, next time you post, try to have a point. take a stance. back it up, even. it makes it so much more interesting to read!

    An intentional Neal Page reference?

    Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 8:15 PM
    Comment #190003

    Honestly, I think some of you watch way too much TV. Broadcast news is useful for big breaking stories, but if you want to understand anything in depth, you gotta turn off that TV and read.

    Posted by: Trent at October 24, 2006 8:16 PM
    Comment #190004

    kctim-
    Let me put it plainly: FOX advocates a party line in a way CNN, MSNBC, and the traditional networks don’t. MSNBC goes for a grab bag of different pundits, across the spectrum. CNN goes for populist, right of center pundits who bash both sides.

    FOX is the only place that has an identifiable political affiliation, and where the news is dominated by commentary to such a degree. FOX is also the largest major news network to be run by a Republican Campaign strategist. FOXNews head Roger Ailes worked for the elder Bush’s campaign.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2006 8:18 PM
    Comment #190008

    “FOX is the only place that has an identifiable political affiliation, and where the news is dominated by commentary to such a degree.”

    No. FOX is the only network that even tries to present a conservative view along side the liberal view.

    Posted by: Don at October 24, 2006 8:39 PM
    Comment #190009


    Oh no! These two stories cannot be true. 1) The Bush Administrations new October plan for Iraq is the same as the Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid plan they put forth in July. 2) The Bush Administration has just announced that they are releasing funds for the establishment of same sex schools. Is this a dream come true for the homosexual agenda?

    Posted by: jlw at October 24, 2006 8:41 PM
    Comment #190010

    Roger:
    I think if you read the first chapters of Romans carefully, you will see that it is directed at the church members themselves. He even goes so far as to say that Gentiles who do not follow the law, but who act and think morally will be judged accordingly. If you look at the contents of those first chapters in the letter, then look at the GOP right now, you should despair.

    Duano-
    Matthews? Try again. The left finds him obnoxious

    O’Reilly? Invites Liberals them to scream at them.

    Olbermann? Good heavens, communism? I’m no expert here on political science, but when’s the last time Olbermann called on the proletariat to rise and take control of the means of production? Whens the last time you heard him call for us to join our brothers in North Korea and overthrow Bush?

    The Right has got to learn to stick to claims that actually have some merit.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2006 8:44 PM
    Comment #190011

    Dave1-20-09
    “This allows moth pieces like Limbaugh to pull numbers out of his fat ass…”

    Interesting, did you know that Limbaugh hasn’t been fat for the last 5 years? Apparently, you haven’t listened to him or seen him in a long time. So, apparently you must be pulling stuff out of your fat …

    Posted by: Don at October 24, 2006 8:48 PM
    Comment #190012

    Stephen D -
    “The Republican Talking Point:
    Americans cannot win wars if they know how terrible war really is.”

    The Democrat Talking Point:
    Americans cannot win.

    Posted by: Don at October 24, 2006 8:49 PM
    Comment #190013

    Don-
    Everybody presents Right Wing views on the news. Haven’t you seen the Sunday morning shows, the GOP’s talking heads making their points right along side them? There’s no shortage of that.

    The difference is that these networks don’t try to make the Republican’s case for them. FOXNews carries water for the Republicans that other networks wouldn’t for fear of being accused of losing their objectivity. I remember them being the first to break all kinds of beneficial stories, including all the MET Alpha stories they eventually retracted (the reason FOX is burned as a source for me)

    Because you cannot look at the news being gathered objectively, because you assume so many negative stories that aren’t on FOX are the work of liberal propagandists, you have missed the boat on things you should have been aware of long ago. Do yourself a favor and read The Assassins’ Gate, a balanced perspective on the war from a man who supported getting rid of Saddam, but also has serious issues with the way the war’s been lead and planned.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2006 8:53 PM
    Comment #190014


    Don: That is what drugs do to you. They eat your body away by suppressing your appetite. Almost all of them look like that around here, minus the makeup,

    Posted by: jlwilliams at October 24, 2006 8:59 PM
    Comment #190015

    oh lord.
    as i said, olbermann appears decidedly liberal to me. what exactly are you trying to argue? …that any network that dares to present another side of a given issue is thereby factually skewed? i don’t think so. his presence is a testament to msnbc’s commitment to objectivity.

    as for matthews, i must have missed the interview with sheehan - i try to avoid listening to the mindless drivel promulgated by extremist ideologues… which brings me to o’reilly (i shudder at the name). being bought and paid for by the radical right does not make one a conservative, much less ‘fair and balanaced.’

    the fact that you allude to the infamous o’reilly as the exemplar of objectivity is simply farcical, and frankly calls into question your own perception of impartiality.

    scarborough is an intelligent, well-versed, fair, accomplished, and *true* conservative. o’reilly is a joke, flat-out. if you want intelligent discourse pertaining to current events, turn to scarborough. if you want a good laugh, listen to (or merely look at) o’reilly.

    Posted by: Diogenes at October 24, 2006 9:00 PM
    Comment #190016

    jlwilliams -

    Get a life! What I said was true! And he has been off of painkillers for about two years and hasn’t added any perceivable weight. Now what’s your excuse?

    Posted by: Don at October 24, 2006 9:02 PM
    Comment #190018

    Don-
    Americans can win, when their leader, Democrat or Republican knows what they’re doing. Reagan didn’t know what he was doing in Beirut, we ended up leaving the place worse off. Bush knew what he was doing in Kuwait, we left that place better. Clinton didn’t know what he was doing in Somalia, we had real problems. He knew what he was doing with Kosovo, and despite the anxiety he stuck through to the end. Bush had a good plan under him for Afghanistan, and if we had just done the last part right, it would have been a triumph, and a warning to future terrorists. Bush failed to plan for post war realities in Iraq, failed to confirmed what we supposed to fight and die over before we went in there. And so we’re having a tough time.

    If you’ve actually read back through my entries on the Blue Column, you’d note a pretty obvious motif: I’ve always favored winning the war over running away from it. If you looked through Democratic speeches, you’ll find my writing is not alone in this emphasis.

    The Democratic emphasis is fighting and winning in the right places, not wasting lives, money, and prestige fighting wars against nations that do not pose the real threats to us.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2006 9:11 PM
    Comment #190021

    Stephen D-

    “Haven’t you seen the Sunday morning shows…”

    Oh, is that all you’re talking about??? Of course the Sunday morning shows try to be balanced. Is that what EVERYBODY is talking about?

    NO. NO. NO.

    We’re talking also about network news, political talking heads at the conventions, reporting from the White House, reporting from Iraq, etc. etc. The majority of the reporting on the news, from conventions, from the White House, from the House and Senate, from Iraq, from nearly every source is left leaning. You have seen it, yet you deny it.

    I, on the other hand, am not a Republican, yet I have seen an over-weighting of Democrat/liberal bias in the news. It is refreshing to turn to FOX on occasion to get some balance…a perspective that can not be found ANYWHERE else. Pity if we never got the other side of any story.

    Posted by: Don at October 24, 2006 9:18 PM
    Comment #190022

    Stephen D -
    “Americans can win”

    What was wrong with your original statement is the same thing that was wrong with my statement. It was an much over-simplification and in error.

    That was my point. YOU were wrong!

    Posted by: Don at October 24, 2006 9:23 PM
    Comment #190023


    Don: If you think that Fuzz Lintball is a pervarer of the truth, it is you that needs to get a life.

    Fuzz showed just how ignorant he is with his comments about Michael J. Fox. Check out Parkinsons Disease for yourself, find out what makes people who have the disease shake the way they do. You might just find out how much of a ignorant, lying piece of crap the person doing your thinking for you really is.

    Posted by: jlw at October 24, 2006 9:27 PM
    Comment #190024
    the fact that you allude to the infamous o’reilly as the exemplar of objectivity is simply farcical, and frankly calls into question your own perception of impartiality.

    Well, if we are to believe Matthews when he says he voted for Dubya, what about when O’Reilly claims he almost always evenly splits his ballot between Dems and Reps? What about when O’Reilly screams the left’s talking point that the big, bad oil companies are out to get us, and the Republicans are propping them up for campaign cash? What about his condemnation of people like Tom Tancredo who want to deport all illegals. “That’s a nutty right-wing idea.” That is a direst quote from Bill’s radio show. I can say for sure that Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, and John Gibson are definately conservatives and their bias shows through. But liberal bias is easy to see in Olbermann and Matthews. Sometimes I think O’Reilly’s conservative, and sometimes he dissapoints me by taking liberal positions(oh yeah, he’s against the death penalty, too. It seem to me that you’ve been swimming in liberal Kool-Aid so much that you’ve never had time to actually watch his show, but that’s typical. Getting all your information about O’Reilly from AirAmerica and DailyKos is probably gonna make you think he’s a raving right winger. Go figure.

    Posted by: Duane-o at October 24, 2006 9:29 PM
    Comment #190025

    I have read every word of every post on this subject.

    My conclusion is that there is much suposition and very little debate. I am still waiting for something to debate about. There were a few exceptions to this thought, but 98% or greater were ego busters.

    Posted by: tomh at October 24, 2006 9:30 PM
    Comment #190027
    I have read every word of every post on this subject.
    My conclusion is that there is much suposition and very little debate.

    That’s a direct consequence of having an original post with no useful debatable ideas. When the input is partisan hackery, you know what the output will be.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 9:36 PM
    Comment #190028

    jlw -

    Why don’t you change the topic so no one can figure out what you are talking about? Then you can win an argument.

    You said he had lost weight because he was on drugs. I pointed out that he hasn’t been on painkillers for about two years. Please let me know what you have missed?

    Posted by: Don at October 24, 2006 9:39 PM
    Comment #190030

    Don-
    When the Democrats were screwing things up in the early nineties, did the media have a right-wing bias for pointing out their flaws? No. Neither that for Vietnam, nor that for pointing out Carter’s mistakes on foreign policy.

    It’s not bias to point out mistakes, or to have more negative pointed out about one’s action, when one is continually screwing up.

    You should ask whether reality is having a bias towards the negative before you ask whether the media is having a bias towards your rivals. If reality has the bias, bitching at us does you little good, and in fact may further wall you off from solving your problems. If your problems are real, then you are better off addressing them, than complaining to others about people’s negative perception of you.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2006 9:43 PM
    Comment #190031

    by the way, fat or thin, limbaugh is a dick.

    blue column, take heart: the asinine comments of limbaugh and o’reilly do not represent the majority of conservative americans.


    daugherty,

    if bush sr. had one fault, i would argue that it was bad parenting. however, do not fault conservatism for the failings of neocons. w. is no conservative.

    Posted by: Diogenes at October 24, 2006 9:47 PM
    Comment #190034

    Well, if we are to believe Matthews when he says he voted for Dubya, what about when O’Reilly claims he almost always evenly splits his ballot between Dems and Reps? What about when O’Reilly screams the left’s talking point that the big, bad oil companies are out to get us, and the Republicans are propping them up for campaign cash? What about his condemnation of people like Tom Tancredo who want to deport all illegals. “That’s a nutty right-wing idea.” That is a direst quote from Bill’s radio show. I can say for sure that Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, and John Gibson are definately conservatives and their bias shows through. But liberal bias is easy to see in Olbermann and Matthews. Sometimes I think O’Reilly’s conservative, and sometimes he dissapoints me by taking liberal positions(oh yeah, he’s against the death penalty, too. It seem to me that you’ve been swimming in liberal Kool-Aid so much that you’ve never had time to actually watch his show, but that’s typical. Getting all your information about O’Reilly from AirAmerica and DailyKos is probably gonna make you think he’s a raving right winger. Go figure.

    Care to refute?

    Posted by: Duane-o at October 24, 2006 9:51 PM
    Comment #190036

    “It seem to me that you’ve been swimming in liberal Kool-Aid so much that you’ve never had time to actually watch his show, but that’s typical. Getting all your information about O’Reilly from AirAmerica and DailyKos is probably gonna make you think he’s a raving right winger.”

    he is an eccentric asshole that makes conservatives look bad. as for your assumption that i am a liberal, i see through your hollow attempt at insult - as merely a typical neocon defamation tactic. attack the credibility, dodge the topic at hand (cuz you have nothing meaningful to say).

    ‘night.

    Posted by: Diogenes at October 24, 2006 9:57 PM
    Comment #190038

    Stephen D-
    “You should ask whether reality is having a bias towards the negative”

    Nice comeback! Problem is, that there are many evidences that your statements are not true in this regard. One such has to do with what happens when a politician makes a mistake in his/her speech or actions. Those on the Republican side who have made degrading or possibly racist comments have been ATTACKED by the media, while those on the Democrat side have been given a pass. Those on the Republican side who have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar have had entire shows devoted to telling the story (such as 20-20), yet those on the Democrat side caught with their hand in the cookie jar have been given a pass (hardly mentioned in MSM).

    Of course the President (on either side) gets raked over the coals. The big exception was Clinton’s lies under oath.

    But of equal importance in the presentation of the news is the balance of good v. bad. A large number of troops in Iraq have been involved in many humanitarian situations (few reported). A very small number of troops have been involved in some bad stuff (extreme reporting which blackens the eye of the sitting president). This degree of reporting bias has not been seen in America since Viet Nam and it started almost at the beginning of the Iraq war. That was way too early to be coincidental.

    Posted by: Don at October 24, 2006 10:02 PM
    Comment #190045
    did you know that Limbaugh hasn’t been fat for the last 5 years? Apparently, you haven’t listened to him or seen him in a long time. So, apparently you must be pulling stuff out of your fat …Posted by: Don at October 24, 2006 08:48 PM
    Apparently, by NOT listening to a sex pervert drug addict asswipe liar like Limbaugh makes ME the person pulling “stuff” out of my ass. hmmmm, that really makes sense! I see the error of my ways now, thanks Don. I will instantly return to the Republican party, rediscover my conservative roots, start watching Fox news, and drink my kool-aid like a good little sheep. Again, thanks for the enlightenment Don. Oh yeah, I’ll have to forget that Bush lies only when he’s not under oath and remember he only tells me what I need to know, like a good Big Brother he is. Long Live Big Brother!!!!!Where’s my Victory Gin? Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 24, 2006 10:36 PM
    Comment #190052

    Duano-
    The thing is, FOX is almost nothing but Republicans, with a few token liberals. MSNBC is a mix, CNN mostly news, rather than just one opinion show after another.

    Truth is, you’re wrong about where I get most of my information. I tend to frequent Talking Points Memo and Washington Monthly more. I also have The Washington Note on my list of favorites. I occasionally visit others, but I’m looking more for news articles and good analysis rather than just plain opinion. I prefer to take people’s arguments aparts by means that look the same from whatever angle. If I can’t nail people down to the facts (like what is a major news network doing being run by a former Campaign Strategist for Bush 41?) Then all meaning is debateable.

    You might say I’ve imbibed the Kool-Aid, but I can give you the facts that hold up my opinion. can you do the same, or are your “facts” just your opinions assertively claimed by circular argument?

    Don-
    If you have such evidence, do give it. Don’t just claim you’ve got the better argument, make the better argument.

    You claim that Democrats who have been made such comments have been given a free pass. Prove that. Prove that Steny Hoyer’s comments didn’t receive attention, and that he did not apologize for them. Prove that William Jefferson did not find his exploits receiving national attention, and that the Democrats didn’t throw him under the bus, kicking him off committees, despite the race-baiting on the matter. Prove that Harry Reid has not been subject to three nationally covered issues, and that reporters following up on matters haven’t found little evidence of real misbehavior.

    I think it’s easy to prove that Clinton’s scandals were well covered. He didn’t get a pass. In fact, he could have gotten a colonoscopy that was less invasive than that coverage. I recall people analyzing body language on a video of him hugging her. The facts on his civil suit testimony were thoroughly presented. It’s just that most Americans, after years of having the log of tumultuous home lives front and center, were not about to condemn a man who lied about an extramarital affair.

    Let me tell you something else: there is no balance of good and bad besides what you find. You should report what you find. The problem is, you find most negative reports evidence of something that requires you downplay and ignore the problem. What you end up doing is covering for behaviors and problems that serve to only sour the party’s reputation.

    Your party is far too interested in the artifical maintenance of morale. You’ve become fixated on whether accounts can encourage or discourage people, and have not asked the crucial question of what these events and incidents mean, what they indicate, and what that requires in terms of action.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2006 11:02 PM
    Comment #190056

    Stephen D -
    “Your party is far too interested in the artifical maintenance of morale.”

    You haven’t paid attention. I belong to no party. I DO have great interest in maintenance of morale in America, but not for the sake of any particular party.

    You DO have a clear agenda, however. Your party is far too interested in the artificial destruction of morale. The error of that agenda is that it tears apart the fabric of our nation. (And it wouldn’t matter which party was doing it…I would oppose it.)

    Posted by: Don at October 24, 2006 11:17 PM
    Comment #190057

    Stephen

    Here you go.

    Media Bias Basics

    Posted by: Keith at October 24, 2006 11:17 PM
    Comment #190059

    Dave1-20-09
    “I see the error of my ways now, thanks Don.”

    You’re very welcome!

    Posted by: Don at October 24, 2006 11:19 PM
    Comment #190081

    Don-
    For a person with no party, you give an awful lot of support to one.

    As for my agenda? My agenda should be clear from the first article I wrote onwards: Give America something real to cheer about.

    I think you would find it rather strange if a football team lost most of its games, and yet berated its fans for being pessimists when they criticized the course they’ve been taking. In the real world, the team is responsible for its losses, and they are usually told they could pump up attendance by improving their record.

    There’s nothing artificial about what’s tearing up morale in this country, and the only thing Democratic about it was our politicians voting for this war out of their ignorance of what Bush and his office knew about this war.

    If you wanted solid support for a war, you first choose a war that is necessary, that is strategically important, and you then apply a good plan to messing up whatever it is that’s bothering us, and then a good plan to cleaning things up afterwards so you don’t get entangled in the thorns of an insurgency or similar unrest. More importantly, you get honest with people and you stay honest, because nothing unites better than the truth. Trying to hide things from people for their own good will only invite negative curiosity and create problems for gathering support.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 25, 2006 1:17 AM
    Comment #190082

    Keith-
    I guess it comes down to this: If you have a wife, you can let her out in public without needing to shackle her and Burqa her because you trust her, and you trust most men. You don’t need men to be eunuchs to consider it unlikely that your spouse would dally with them.

    Similarly, you need not have completely balanced people to have well balanced actions. Not everbody puts selfish political interest above professional standards. Torie Clarke wrote in her book Lipstick on a Pig That she thought Dan Rather was a pretty good reporter. she faults him for handling the scandal badly by not admitting the trouble with the documents straight away.

    Most liberal reporters are willing to check their ideology at the door to write the stories well, and survey the facts objectively. That should be the goal of any group of journalists, despite what the Fox News folks think. We don’t need reinforcement of parties, we need corrosion of that which is false and untrue about them.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 25, 2006 1:25 AM
    Comment #190083

    Stephen

    Since you seem to be so enamored with the democratic party. Can you tell me which of there enlightened leaders really knocks your socks off and is prepared to overwhelm us with their ability to bring us all together.

    Posted by: Keith at October 25, 2006 1:26 AM
    Comment #190084

    Stephen

    “Most liberal reporters are willing to check their ideology at the door to write the stories well, and survey the facts objectively”

    You know these people personally?

    Posted by: Keith at October 25, 2006 1:28 AM
    Comment #190104

    Don,

    The Democrat Talking Point: Americans cannot win.

    The ROTW Talking Point:
    Americans cannot win wars if they know how wrong the reason really is.

    Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 25, 2006 4:59 AM
    Comment #190105

    My Name Is Roger

    TRENT:

    They are not called [PLEASURS]….they are called [SINS].

    And the reason God sent His Son to die on that cross was to pay the price of the [SINS] which you call [PLEASURS], so that you would not have to be punished for them.

    Trent….If God loved you that much, why not return that love by giveing your lift to Him.

    Trent…. God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved.

    He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, [BECAUSE HE HATH NOT BELIEVED IN THE NAME OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD].

    And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men love darkness rather than light, [BECAUSE THEIR DEEDS WERE EVIL].

    For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deed should be reproved.

    JOHN 3:17 to 20

    Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican

    Posted by: ROGER at October 25, 2006 5:36 AM
    Comment #190113

    Roger,

    I am not a Christian in the strict sense. I think the Judeo/Christian sacred texts contain much that is sublime, beautiful, morally uplifting but also much that is not. The Bible itself is a recursive text in which later books revisit and reinterpret previous texts. It also contains many different views of God. I realize that it is unlikely that we will ever agree on these points. My study of the Bible focuses on what interests me: the literary merits of parts of it, how it was composed, and the political circumstances of the writers. These concerns, by the way, are adressed by many Christian and Jewish scholars, who to this day still lead the way in textual understanding (the normal term is textual criticism, but I fear that would be misunderstand — in this context, criticism does not necessarily mean what some may think).

    When it comes to politics, though, I think Christianity is abused. What is particularly Christian about our foreign policy? The messages from these texts I value generally involved love and respect for everyone, including enemies. The Golden Rule is in these texts, of course. When I read the OT on slavery, for instance, I see a view that is less cruel than that taken by other cultures, though, by our standards, the OT view is still barbaric. The NT testament is remarkable in that it makes love central. Truly astounding. But there is also much I find disturbing. The constant wishing for harm for enemies in, for example, the Pslams, or the idea, frequently expressed in that book, that God should save the writer because if he died, he wouldn’t be able to praise God, as if God is eager for our praise and can be swayed by such arguments. (The Retribution theology expressed in many books is countered by more sophisticated theology in other books.)

    At any rate, people always select verses they think supports their point of view and ignore verses they don’t. When people have political agendas, this distortion gets even greater.

    Posted by: Trent at October 25, 2006 7:00 AM
    Comment #190115

    Roger,

    I used the term “pleasures” to sum up the “passions” listed in Paul’s verses. Obviously, “pleasures” are not always good; I did not mean to imply they were. I avoided the word “sin” because in my translation that word is not used in these verses.

    At any rate, consider the verses immediately after Romans 1:21-32.

    Posted by: Trent at October 25, 2006 7:14 AM
    Comment #190136

    My Name Is Roger

    TRENT:

    Looking at the verses right after Romans 1:21 to 32 { If I read it right it is talking about judgeing people for commiting sin. And that it is wrong to do so [ IF YOU ARE DOING THE SAME THING ].

    It seems that the people who were doing this…. thought that they would excape God’s judgement for the sins they were commiting… if they judge others for the sin’s they were commiting.

    If they saw it was wrong in others… it was also wrong for them, and judgeing others did not free them of being judged, because it is obvious that they knew it was wrong, and were doing the same thing.

    BUT… I do not think it is teaching that we are not to judge sin as sin.

    BUT… you are right… we are not to judge sin in others [IF] we are doing the same thing.

    Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican

    Posted by: ROGER at October 25, 2006 9:36 AM
    Comment #190149

    Stephen
    Now, please allow me to put it plainly: CCN, MSNBC, NPR and the “traditional” networks openly advocate the “our way or no way” party line thinking of the left.
    YOU, do not see it as such because you lean left, just as many don’t see FOX as right-wing, because they lean right.
    You watch FOX and see a Conservative agenda, while others watch the other channels and see a socialist agenda.
    There is a reason for that.

    Posted by: kctim at October 25, 2006 10:59 AM
    Comment #190190

    Keith-
    The enlightened leaders that knock my socks off are the voters. I am not looking for the redemption of the party to come from above. We will sort out who we want to support based on who performs well.

    As for Reporters? If I have to know a person personally in order to determine whether they have a bias, then it must not be so profound. The stories they write, and whether they got their facts straight should be all the indication we need. If bias is not apparent from that approach, then that person’s politics obviously aren’t intruding.

    kctim-
    Prove your point. Stop equivocating about each side doing the same things. I can easily prove an intentional right-wing slant, an intentional strategy of advocacy reporting. Can you prove the same of those you say have a bias, and show that it is more than just conspiracy theory?

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 25, 2006 1:05 PM
    Comment #190204

    Roger,

    PErhaps this is not hte place for this discussion, and if the moderators cut this, I won’t complain. I do find this interesting.

    I think your reading of the early verses of Romans 2 is reasonable, but in a deeper sense, and one made clearer in the rest of the chapter, all of us are under the power of sin (3:9), “There is no one who is righteous” (3:10).

    I think it would be a real stretch to say the text precludes preaching about sin, but when it comes to individuals, I think the message is that we have to first look at ourselves. I’ve already admitted that I am not a Christian, and there are certain things the Bible concemns that I don’t. I am much, much more concerned with how people treat each other than I am in homosexuality, for instance.

    I do find it very difficult to understand how Christianity can be used to justify the foreign policies of the present administration. Would Jesus support torture (or, if you prefer, “harsh interrogation tactics” such as waterboarding)? Would he support rounding up suspects without charge, denying them lawyers, labeling all as enemies, when we know that many are not? I can understand the position of some Christians on abortion and homosexuality, but I can’t for many, many things the current administration has done. I believe that many leaders, in the Church or in politics, profess Christianity but then engage in atrocious behavior. I also believe there are many truly good Christians. But my alarms go off when politicians use Christianity to achieve political ends. As we both know, you can cite scripture to justify just about anything.

    Posted by: Trent at October 25, 2006 1:43 PM
    Comment #190208

    Roger, oops, I should have said “letter” or “epistle” in my second sentence, not “chapter.” The comments Stephen D. made earlier about the context of the letter obviously also apply. Paul is trying to achieve several things, apparently — to garner support for a mission to Spain, to persuade Christians not to lord it over the Jews, to protect the sancity of the offering of the Gentiles, and to calm Jewish sensibilities. He also does not wish harm to come to Roman Jews, which given recent history, was a real possibility because of a growing anti-Judaism. And on top of all that, to proclaim the Christian life. It’s an amazingly rich epistle.

    Posted by: Trent at October 25, 2006 1:56 PM
    Comment #190222

    My Name Is Roger:

    TRENT:

    I know in my heart of hearts that …………….

    JESUS WOULD NEVER SUPORT TORTURE

    And I am sure that there are a lot of things done in the name of GOD, that would never be supported or concond by GOD.

    And I am sure that we as Rupublicans and Democrats have done and will continue to do that which God would never support or concone, AND WHEN WE SEE IT BEING DONE, WE [TOGEATHER] NEED TO STAND UP AGAINST IT.

    Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican

    Posted by: ROGER at October 25, 2006 3:03 PM
    Comment #190227

    Stephen
    The proof is in the viewership, the blogs and who is critical of what and understanding of the other.

    Why would a Republican complain about how liberal a media outlet is if they did not view it as such? Why do liberals hate FOX? It is because they do not agree with slant given.

    IF the majority of viewers did not see a liberal bias from those media outlets, there would be no bias to speak of. And trying to blame it all on a Right wing conspiracy by Rush and others is nothing but trying to avoid the obvious.

    I too believe FOX columnists slant to the right some and probably moreso than other outlets. You and I both see that, right? But that is not the problem.
    The problem lies in what YOU can’t see and you cannot see a bias when you agree with the message.
    Everything from sympathy for the poor to how evil guns are to accepting the gay lifestyle to supposed racial inequality etc… is broadcast 365 days a year by the liberal media so that America will believe and accept what they think is right.

    As I said before, add up all those who you think are biased for the right and add up all those you think are “fair” and see just how liberal or conservative the MSM really is.

    Posted by: kctim at October 25, 2006 3:23 PM
    Comment #190253

    Wait a minute, kctim. Sympathy for the poor is leftist? Reports of gun deaths is leftist? Reporting without condemnation gay issues is leftist? Reporting on racial inequality is leftist? Good grief! You are essentially saying that 1) having a conscience and 2) reporting the facts is leftist! I know some Republicans who would disagree with you.

    Posted by: Trent at October 25, 2006 5:15 PM
    Comment #190259

    Kctim-

    News is news. Even if it is proven to be selectively reported, the news is factual. Opinions are opinions and are easily spoted by anyone with a brain. Anyone who actually watches FOX News and doesn’t believe they are listening to opinion needs to do an intervention with their brains.

    I find CNN and MSNBC to be somewhat left leaning, but they still try to present the legitimate counter-argument. FOX makes a mockery of liberalism, and they do it blatently. I do not consider myslef very liberal, but I can’t stand watching FOX because they are so insultingly careless in presenting opposing views. After a few hours of FOX news, one is ready to believe calling democrats “communists” simply because of a small disagreement in a piece of legislation is a normal and socially acceptable way of debating politics. In reality, it turns people off…especially centrists.

    I’ll admit this much: conservative radio and TV hosts (entertainers) have relatively large and extremely loyal listeners and viewers. So apparently it is good entertainment. But don’t kid yourself into believing that punditry is based in fact any more so than WWE wrestling. Yes the body slams are real, but they are body slamming a guy who is not legitimately fighting back.

    FOX has simply managed to insert pundits in the place of anchors and convince people that it is still legitimate news. In reality, it is opinion. And I do not say this because I agree more with any one station. They all piss me off. If it is not sensationalism, then it is annoying repetition of meaningless official public statements. But FOX, the only station where I am guaranteed to have a host that shares my own party affiliation, is utterly unbearable to watch. They insult your intelligence. They try and tone down the impression of extremism by having wackos on who are so off in right field they make a guy like Pat Buchanan look centrist. Thus, they treat people as if they do not get their news from any other source. Again, an insult to intelligence, especially in the information age.

    While it is entirely possible in our society, surrounding yourself with only that media which plays to your politics usually ends in a person losing their sense of what is truly normal. It exists on both sides whether it be calling Bush a Nazi or calling democrats appeasers. What garbage.

    But this is exactly what we’ve been getting from even our white house officials…garbage. The vast majority of people don’t want any part of this nonsense. Too bad we don’t have a leader who can reach out to the other side of the isle and value truth more than their position in the trench warfare that is partisan politics today. If people had even the slightest impression that the dissemination of truth was actually being valued as a tool by their parties, then voter turnout might even hit the elusive 50% mark. Instead, us republicans are given FOX news. What a joke.

    Posted by: Kevin23 at October 25, 2006 5:42 PM
    Comment #190308

    I don’t pretend to be an expert on Aristotlian logic. I just present my opinion as best I can because at the end of the day, that’s all it is: My opinion. If I framed the most logical arguement possible, liberals would still rail against it because my views do not advance the liberal agenda. All I could hope to gain is a grudging respect for my abilities as a wordsmith, and then I would have allowed the “debate” to be led and framed by liberals.

    CNN broadcast enemy propoganda. I consider that a treasonous act. In order to understand why CNN would stoop to broadcasting enemy propoganda, you must understand how liberals think. To illustrate, I chose three issues that most liberals care deeply about - abortion, welfare, and gay marriage.

    I cautioned that many liberals are very smart, and would have to be in order to justify - to themselves, at least - their positions on these and other issues. Most conservatives consider abortion to be a necessary evil at best, and many consider it to be outright murder. Liberals don’t see it that way. They see it as an extension of a woman’s “reproductive rights,” as though such rights begin at conception and not before.

    Conservatives believe that forever rewarding large blocs of able-bodied people for not supporting themselves does great harm to them and society at large. Liberals don’t see it that way. They seem to think that because certain groups of people suffered from discrimination in the distant past, they somehow deserve to be on the government dole forever.

    Finally, on the subject of gay marriage, conservatives believe that a family consisting of a father, mother, and their children is the foundation of society. Redefining marriage imperils that very foundation and creates a slippery slope whereby marriage will be redefined again and again. But liberals don’t see it that way. They think that if two people profess to love one another, they should be allowed to marry, regardless of any future negative societal consequence.

    Understanding the mindset of contemporary American liberals helps to explain why CNN would stoop so low as to broadcast enemy propoganda. Like most liberals, the management at CNN are internationalists who consider all societies to be of equal worth and therefore must be accorded equal weight. From their point of view, American exceptionalism is the root cause of many of the world’s problems.

    CNN does not want to appear as though it favors one culture over another because it would not be “fair.” And in the pursuit of a high-minded fairness only a liberal could understand, CNN crossed the line and stumbled into the realm of treason.

    Posted by: Chris at October 25, 2006 8:31 PM
    Comment #190315

    Chris,

    I guess my first point will be that “liberals” as you call us represent a spectrum of views. I have problems with abortion, myself, but acknowledge that importance of self determination. Tough issue, and I can respect those who disagree with me. Do you?

    Welfare — you claim that it causes transgenerational dependency. Can you prove this? Do you think the welfare reform hammered out by Clinton and Republicans didn’t go far enough? What do you do if a mother can’t afford to feed her children? Myself, I think there should be a safety net, but also job training, etc. You disagree? Be specific, please — it’s another big issue on which you are not going to find uniformity of “liberal opinion.”

    Gay marriage — you claim it threatens traditional marriage? How so? I’m serious. I’m not gay; I can’t see how gay marriage could possibly affect any marriage I am in. For the record, I’m divorced, but the cause was not gay marriage, let me assure you.

    I’m serious. Set aside your contempt and anger for a minute and establish some good arguments. The better the argument, the more you might find points of consensus, if that is a goal. If it’s not, then what is?

    Posted by: Trent at October 25, 2006 8:44 PM
    Comment #190321

    Oh, one more thing. The liberals I know greatly respect the Western liberal tradition — it’s what made women suffrage, civil rights, and all the other good stuff possible. The liberals I know get upset when American doesn’t live up to this tradition. Who here says we’d prefer to live under the Taliban? Or force women to cover up head to toe?

    I think you are repeating a mantra; ask yourself if you can truly find any basis for it?

    Posted by: Trent at October 25, 2006 8:52 PM
    Comment #190327

    There certainly seems to be an uptick in the number of comments by liberals. Is Soros paying overtime until after the election?

    Posted by: Chris at October 25, 2006 9:38 PM
    Comment #190341

    He pays by the word, Chris, with bonuses whenever a conservative complains about how smart we are.

    Posted by: Trent at October 25, 2006 10:40 PM
    Comment #190346

    I found something interesting about the posts here. I copied and pasted the entire comments section into an empty Excel spreadsheet and scanned about a third of it. I wanted to see how many posts were made by liberals and how many were made by conservatives.

    Some identified themselves as liberal or conservative. I inferred the political leanings of others by reading their comments. I started at the top of the comments section and looked for

    Posted by: username

    and then looked for the total number of occurrences of that string of characters. I stopped about a third through the comments section.

    Out of the 112 posts that I looked at, 77 were posted by liberals and 35 were posted by conservatives.

    Three liberals accounted for 55% of the posts by liberals. These must be Soros’s heavy hitters.

    Two conservatives accounted for over 51% of the posts by conservatives. These must be Karl Rove plants.

    I stopped about a third of the way through the comments section, but there is definitely a trend. I’d like to conduct a more thorough analysis of the postings. It certainly is curious why liberals would devote so much time and energy to a conservative blog.

    Posted by: Chris at October 25, 2006 10:50 PM
    Comment #190354

    Chris,

    It certainly is curious why liberals would devote so much time and energy to a conservative blog.

    Are you serious? You’re an editor on the site and you don’t understand that the site is a triple blog?

    Wow.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at October 25, 2006 11:08 PM
    Comment #190365

    kctim-
    The bias you describe is almost impossible to grasp. It’s almost tautological: people will see others relative to their political positions. Well, duh.

    But that’s not the issue. The issue is hard facts. The issue is control, and what the goal of that control is.

    If you want to see Liberal advocacy like that of the Right Wing, the show NOW on PBS would be more like what you were saying. Frankly, as a Liberal, I find it hard to stand such rhetoric. You have to understand that many Liberals feel insulted at being fed the interpretations. We prefer just to get things straight up, with as little interpretation as necessary. If you’ll notice, its rare to see people on the regular news pushing a point, advocating. Most of the time, its just coverage and analysis, often evenhanded. I think it says more about you that you see the bias, than me that I don’t see it.

    I think it says that you’ve been taught to analyze sources before content. That’s a dangerous game to play, especially when you misjudge sources, or get invested in proving one right. The human mind is quite adept at tying itself in logical knots when it doesn’t moor itself to the facts and the reality behind them.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 25, 2006 11:39 PM
    Comment #190373

    Chris-

    I don’t pretend to be an expert on Aristotlian logic. I just present my opinion as best I can because at the end of the day, that’s all it is: My opinion. If I framed the most logical arguement possible, liberals would still rail against it because my views do not advance the liberal agenda. All I could hope to gain is a grudging respect for my abilities as a wordsmith, and then I would have allowed the “debate” to be led and framed by liberals.

    First, you should do your best no matter how hostile or competitive the situation is. If you’re not willing to do your best, yet ask others to believe your views are better than those who have put forward the effort, you’re asking a lot.

    Second, the degree of your success, as my logic teacher from college would tell you, depends on the validity of your argument, and the soundness of your facts. The most powerful arguments take their premises from reality, and organize them in an effective, justifiable interpretation.

    If you feel that your facts or your interpretation are untenable, then perhaps it’s time to reconsider your position.

    You pick an awful position to begin with. Abortion, Welfare, and Gay Marriage are more important to Repulbicans than they are to most Democrats. The Iraq War, Terrorism, Homeland Security, Fiscal concerns and economic justice are the real centers, as it is.

    Why pick those erroneous positions? Because they’re dependable, divisive talking points. Trouble is, history’s left them behind, and Democrats are focusing on the issues they’ve found motivate people.

    From there, your whole explanation of why CNN would do this fails to register one very important point: the coverage is not positive. Coverage is called chilling. The person given most exclusive voice is a commander from our forces explaining it. The identification is not with our enemy, but with our soldiers. Why else black things out at the moment of their death. Truly craven news organizations would show everything. CNN shows them respect.

    As for your follow-up?

    Having been pushed for so long, liberals like myself have decided to push back. Most are content to make short responses, but we’re sort of essayists and debators by nature, so you get the big essays and long threads of back and forth debating.

    I would advise you not to underestimate us by imagining we get paid for this.

    As for why the bulk of the conflict is on the Red Column? That’s where the people on the fence are.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 26, 2006 12:16 AM
    Comment #190398

    Chris,

    Assuming your figures about liberal/conservative comments are correct, so what? If all the comments were by conservatives, you’d be preaching to the choir and wouldn’t pick up any votes. If more liberals comment or read, then you have a chance to pick up some votes. I realize Bush likes to speak at events where his audience is cherry picked, but here, that ain’t gonna happen. Do you read the other two columns? If not, why not?

    Seriously, why are you writing if not to convert?

    I’m going to let you in on a secret. Some conservatives argue very well, too. Liberals don’t have a lock on intelligence, all joking aside, just as conservatives don’t have a lock on morality.

    Posted by: Trent at October 26, 2006 7:00 AM
    Comment #190421

    Trent,

    I think we’ve come to a phase where it is very rare to find articles on this side of the blog. Mostly there seems to just be the hateful narrow-minded talking point rave of the desperate.

    Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 26, 2006 10:40 AM
    Comment #190422

    Keep you enemy close.
    They report the NEWS not just the NEWS that the WH wants us to hear. I started watching CNN again just because they appear to COVER MORE than just one angle

    Posted by: Dallinda at October 26, 2006 10:43 AM
    Comment #190443

    Trent
    “Wait a minute, kctim. Sympathy for the poor is leftist?”

    No, reporting it in a way to make people feel sorry for them and make others feel obligated to help and care about them is.

    “Reports of gun deaths is leftist?”

    When you only report about gun deaths and rarely report about the positives, yes, the station is pushing one sides agenda.

    “Reporting without condemnation gay issues is leftist?”

    It is when you report in a way so that people believe all who oppose are like Fred Phelps. Some people have very legitimate concerns and should not be remotely compared to the likes of Phelps.

    “Reporting on racial inequality is leftist?”

    Nope, THAT is news. Reporting on perceived racial inequality is leftist. And reporting in a way which places all the blame on the “evil white man” rather than the actual problem, is definetly leftist.

    “Good grief! You are essentially saying that 1) having a conscience and 2) reporting the facts is leftist!”

    No, I’m saying having an agenda and reporting only some of the facts to push that agenda, is leftist.

    “I know some Republicans who would disagree with you.”

    I’m NOT a Republican!
    And I’m pretty sure Republicans cringe when I start going on about personal responsibility, the poor, useless social programs and the such because being Constitutional doesn’t help their cause.

    Posted by: kctim at October 26, 2006 11:48 AM
    Comment #190448

    Kevin23
    “News is news. Even if it is proven to be selectively reported, the news is factual. Opinions are opinions and are easily spoted by anyone with a brain”

    Exactly!
    FOX has its news segments and it has its opinion segments.
    I am not talking about Hannity, Combes, Olberman, Russert…I am talking about the news segments.
    News on FOX: Bad things about Iraq. Good things the troops are doing in Iraq. 10 people killed by a nut with a gun. The lady who wasn’t raped because she was armed. People protesting at an abortion clinic. etc…
    News on the other MSM: Bad things about Iraq. 10 people killed by a nut with a gun. Fred Phelps protesting abortion. etc…

    What a joke?
    Govt run media usually is.

    Posted by: kctim at October 26, 2006 11:58 AM
    Comment #190456

    Stephen
    It IS the content which I am speaking of. As I also see leftist type reporting on FOX, saying I only look at the source is a little silly. FOX, in their NEWS segments, show a little more of the other side of the issue than what the rest of the MSM chooses to.

    FOX reports issues in a way that Republicans like and the left disagrees with.
    The rest of the MSM reports issues in a way that liberals like and many Republicans don’t trust.
    Those are the facts.
    If they weren’t, you guys wouldn’t hate FOX and Republicans would trust the MSM.

    You don’t deny that most liberals hate FOX and most Republicans dont trust the MSM do you?

    Posted by: kctim at October 26, 2006 12:15 PM
    Comment #190467

    Chris-

    A few people make up a big percentage of the posts. You have heard somehwere that some bloggers are paid. Therefore, bloggers who write the most posts are paid.

    Notice anything missing? Like a foundation, support beams, walls, and a roof for your house of logic. I realize that you’ve got the curtains all picked out already, but somehow, it seems to me that having windows should be your first step.

    Posted by: Kevin23 at October 26, 2006 12:43 PM
    Comment #190471

    Kctim-

    What media is goverment run?

    Posted by: Kevin23 at October 26, 2006 12:53 PM
    Comment #190485

    ALL of it Kevin. Its all censored in one way or another. Why do you think our news is so different than the rest of the worlds?
    There is a certain way our govt wants us to view it and it goes out of its way to make sure we view it that way.

    Posted by: kctim at October 26, 2006 1:26 PM
    Comment #190503

    kctim,

    There is a piece by Althusser called “Ideology and the Independent State Appartus.” It discusses the ways that societal institutions, whether or not they are under direct control of the state, support the dominant ideology. Schools, media, church, etc., all subtly reinforce the dominant ideology, which in this country is capitalism. So while I disagree with you if you mean to say there is widespread direct censorship of media by government, in another sense it is undoubtedly true that the media reinforces the country’s ideology. It’s hard to escape the paradigms you grew up with and that permeate our country. Can you imagine grade school students actually learning something in depth about alternative economic systems? How many university students are actually exposed in any meaningful to other ideologies. So, when you talk about the media being leftist, I realize you are talking about very minor slants, to the degree they exist, and to some degree, of course they do. Everyone writes or reports from a perspective, no matter how hard they try to be “objective.” The fact is, all mainstream media buy into the capitalist paradigm as modified by our country — that is, with elements of what you would call socialism. So do all Republican administrations, for that matter. If you want truly divergent viewpoints, you have to search them out — mainstream media won’t provide them.

    At any rate, to discuss an earlier point. I truly am trying to understand what you mean. You say reporting about poverty in such a way as to make viewers or readers sorry for the poor is leftist. Well, um, you know, I didn’t realize compassion was a political thing. I’m not being glib here. I’m guessing a story that simply presented statistics about the number of people below the poverty line would not be leftist, in your view, but a story that followed the life of a poor person and showed the difficulties he or she had would be leftist? If that is what you mean, then, sorry, I simply do not accept your distinction. Look, in my hometown paper there is a section every week about the city’s affluent people — it comes with photos of the styles they are wearing, the parties they attend, etc., etc. Is this rightist reporting? I never thought of it in political terms before. It’s true I consider some of it frivolous, but so what?

    I don’t know. I guess we do see what we want to see.

    Posted by: Trent at October 26, 2006 1:49 PM
    Comment #190519

    Thats a very interesting post Trent.
    Our govt has moved away from its own Constitution and has moved more towards a leftist type of govt. And while Republican administrations respect individual rights alittle more than the liberals, they too are guilty of this movement away from our Constitution.
    Its not that showing poor people on TV is “leftist.” Its showing them non-stop, in a way which makes people feel sorry for them so that they freely give up their rights and allow govt to steal money from them. Its only showing poor people as victims and NEVER report how some are poor simply by their own doing.
    By doing this, they are using their power to push their morals and values onto others. I thought that was wrong?

    Can you imagine grade school students actually learning something in-depth about the US Constitution and their rights?
    How would people be able to explain redistribution of wealth? Overtaxation? Gun control? or any of the other Constitutional violations that we have allowed to become the “norm” to them if we taught them that?

    Oh, and about the “affluent” people you spoke of?
    First, it feeds their ego’s.
    Second, it makes the masses envious and by making them envious, they see no problem with taking away the Constitutional rights of those who have so that the have nots can have their freebies.

    A leftist govt is based on socialism and socialism in not what this country was founded on.
    Socialism has taken away our individual rights and freedoms and it will be the end of this once great country and what it once stood for, freedom.

    Posted by: kctim at October 26, 2006 2:25 PM
    Comment #190528

    kctim-

    “ALL of it Kevin. Its all censored in one way or another. Why do you think our news is so different than the rest of the worlds?
    There is a certain way our govt wants us to view it and it goes out of its way to make sure we view it that way.”

    Sounds rather paranoid to me. Maybe a concrete example of this conspiracy would help. In reading the BBC news, I don’t feel any major difference. What exactly is being “censored” other than things like defamation, libel, profanity, and obsenity?

    Posted by: Kevin23 at October 26, 2006 3:03 PM
    Comment #190531

    “A leftist govt is based on socialism and socialism in not what this country was founded on.
    Socialism has taken away our individual rights and freedoms and it will be the end of this once great country and what it once stood for, freedom.”

    Oh, ok. So it IS paranoia. Hugo Chavez is not running for office in the US…no worries.

    Posted by: Kevin23 at October 26, 2006 3:07 PM
    Comment #190536

    kctim,

    I understand a bit better now, I think. When you speak of rights being taken away, you are speaking of taxes. But the Constitution gives the government the power to tax citizens, so I don’t think we can speak of a “right” not to be taxed.

    Btw, I share some of your concerns about gun control and I’ve never fired a gun in my life — but that’s a different topic. I think we might agree on other things too from a Constitutional standpoint including the need to correct Bush’s abuses.

    Posted by: Trent at October 26, 2006 3:17 PM
    Comment #190543

    I see Kevin. And I suppose all these things you believe to be true about Bush aren’t just “paranoia” are they.

    Trent
    The govt has the power to tax for certain things and should not be involved in even half of what it is.

    That is why I am looking so forward to Ray’s piece tomorrow.

    Posted by: kctim at October 26, 2006 3:56 PM
    Comment #190545

    Kctim-

    “And I suppose all these things you believe to be true about Bush aren’t just “paranoia” are they”

    What “things”?

    Posted by: Kevin23 at October 26, 2006 4:20 PM
    Comment #190593

    I don’t think the left of center want the enemy to win. I do however think if the lefties win elections the enemy will also win. Furthermore, I don’t need to watch a video taken at the frontline to know whats going on.Americans need to get together and stay together. Support our troops until they come home. All this gobally-goop about who’s rite or wrong is irrelavent. We are in it now.What bothers me most is how do you know when someone has won? Some of the posts on here are so far off the mark its not funny. In fact it’s quite sad. I don’t know that it matters anymore why we went there. Intelectuals would gladly spew thier wisdom back and forth long after the war ends about why we went there.And probably will.Till someone gives in, says ok, your rite! Then the war will be over. Ther is not a single Democrat or Republican that can put an end to this war.Nor is there a group of either that will do it. Americans did not start this war, terrorist did. If we don’t fight it there we will be fighting it here. Then you won’t have to watch CNN videos to see whats happening,all you’ll have to do is look out your front door.

    Posted by: Bob at October 26, 2006 7:56 PM
    Comment #190620

    Bob, you do know that Al Qaeda and Iraq … oh never mind. And that the Iraq War, according to the consensus view of U.S. Intelligence Agencies, is actually increasing the number of … oh forget it.

    Posted by: Trent at October 26, 2006 9:45 PM
    Comment #190629

    kctim-
    The truth is, the only reason I find the conservative media unreliable is their poor handling of the fact. When an amateur like myself can track down their errors better than they can (like with Mona Charen and the Liberals getting 90% of their money from the rich), then I’d just as soon follow traditional reporting.

    The problem you get into with worrying about bias, is that you’ve decided what you feel about the credibility of the facts before you even review them. I don’t worry too much, as long as the facts are straight. Its simplifies things greatly. It can be painful if my people are on the receiving end, but that’s necessary. When we start giving free passes to those on our political side, that’s when we start shooting our cause in the foot.

    By basically making the liberal bias myth the first thing between them and the MSM, the Republicans and others on the right have made it very easy for them to disregard the problems that have lead up to their situation now. If Republicans want to know how their party got out of their control, its as simple as an easy excuse for not believing what the media tells them.

    Democrats are not so willing to just trust their leaders. They may bash the MSM for getting facts wrong, but if the evidence is there, the Democrats aren’t bitching about media bias. They’re getting angry at their leaders and demanding change. We want government to work. We don’t chalk it up to all the excuses. We want to know why, even if it hurts us politically.

    When it comes down to it, the difference here is that Liberals in this country do not expect the mainstream media to reinforce political power. They expect it to be a check on it. They want the media to probe into all the inconvenient truths. That’s what a liberals idea of the media. You get something like the conservatives got with FOXNews, and the idea alone creeps liberals out. These are people brought up in schools reading Animal Farm and 1984. This is a political culture that describes things in Orwellian terms. The Liberal culture does not trust the concentration of power and wealth in too few hands. Having the media become advocates rubs Liberals the wrong way. We want the bad news. That’s the difference between a people in control of their party, and a party in control of their people.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 26, 2006 10:25 PM
    Comment #190633

    Stephen

    “When it comes down to it, the difference here is that Liberals in this country do not expect the mainstream media to reinforce political power”

    That’s probably the most naive comment I’ve read here. They don’t realize that the media is reinforcing their power because they have always been there. I don’t have to worry about my parent supporting me because it’s just assumed.

    Posted by: Keith at October 26, 2006 10:40 PM
    Comment #190639

    Stephen D.,

    Yes, well said. It’s information we need. I listen to talk radio, for instance, even though I usually distrust the spin because every now and then I learn something verifiable.

    This idea of reading or listening only to media that confirms what you think is just, frankly, nutty. Don’t believe anything unless you can verify it. Everyone writes/reports from a perspective.

    I also believe it is the job of the media to be critical of government, and it’s our job as citizens to be critical of everything. Frankly, the problem with government is our problem and our responsibility. We have allowed all the abuses d.a.n. with great persistence regularly points out.

    For democracy to work, we must be citizens, and as citizens, it is our duty to seek out the facts and not to just seek out media that reinforces what we want to believe.

    Posted by: Trent at October 26, 2006 10:49 PM
    Comment #190642

    I’m reminded of the scene in which Hamlet forces his mother to look into herself, to see how she has stepped from a noble husband to a lustful and treacherous beast. When the ghost of Hamlet’s father appears, and Hamlet realizes his mother cannot see him, he instantly realizes that his mother could use her belief in Hamlet’s madness to discount what he has just forced her to understand.

    Don’t let your belief in a liberal media allow you to turn your eye from the incompetence and failures of this conservative administration.

    Posted by: Trent at October 26, 2006 10:57 PM
    Comment #190805

    Keith-
    I remember clearly the so-called liberal media doing extensive exposes on Democrats and Republicans alike. I essentially grew up during the timeline of the whole Whitewater/Lewinsky scandal, and they did not hold back on all the gossip, the accusations and whatnot.

    But of course, you’re going to argue that as liberal, I don’t know my own politics being shoved in my face. Actually, I do. I didn’t fall off the back of a watermelon truck. I can’t stand to watch that show NOW. I don’t listen to Air America. I much prefer to forgo all the demagoguery, thank you very much, and many liberals are the same.

    I don’t feel like having my opinions fed to me. I don’t like the idea that I might be pushing a talking point regardless of its truth.

    Besides, one uses facts gained from reporters abiding by journalistic guidelines for one very important reason: it’s more effective.

    Opinions have asymmetric meaning for people, when put out on their own in messages: what one person sees one way, another person see differently from the other side.

    Facts are symmetric. They look the same from different angles. The interpretations might change, but even they must depend on the facts for their truth and falsity. You can do actual damage to an opinion if its interpretation requires certain facts to be valid. This has been a technique used time and again by the Democrats.

    The drawback is facts being used against you. The way to deal with this is to improve yourself on this front. It’s a useful drawback, if you really think about it, for people in a Democracy.

    So I’d much rather get the facts from the news, rather than somebody’s opinion or talking point.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 27, 2006 1:43 PM
    Comment #190975

    DavidL:

    It’s people like this that are the reason that we’ve had all of one PhD in the history of the American presidency. Anti-intellectualism of this kind is common to totalitarian apologists. The intellectuals were the first targets of Mao (the Cultural Revolution) and some of the most powerful fascist dictators of the 20th Century (whose names I won’t mention because they’re over-used in comparisons).

    That’s ironic when you consider that he led America into an unpopular war after promising that he wouldn’t. He was so smart that he thought he could make all the nations of the world cooperate with one another simply by talking to them. He gave us the draft in 1917, was the first president to impose an income tax, oversaw massive strikes and race riots, and witnessed a wartime boom economy sink into a wartime depression. The consensus of presidential experts ranks him in the second tier of the best presidents. A lot of good that PhD did him.

    Chris, you can go on and on about “intelligence without values,” but while we can measure intelligence to some degree, whose values are you speaking of? Yours? Your religion’s?

    I never used the word “values.” I used the word “virtue.” A virtuous man knows the difference between right and wrong. You are defending an American news organizaion that knowingly broadcast enemy propoganda. That doesn’t sound very virtuous to me.

    Posted by: Chris at October 27, 2006 11:02 PM
    Comment #190995

    Trent:

    First, it seems that the screen blacks out after each shot so actual hits are not shown.

    So, as far as you are concerned, it’s perfectly OK to broadcast enemy propoganda as long as the really violent parts are left out. You really freak me out, Trent.

    Second, the reporter informs us this is propaganda from insurgents.

    That was pretty obvious from the get-go.

    Third, the military expert confirms that we, of course, use the same tactics.

    Yes, we have snipers of our own. What’s your point?

    Fourth, there was nothing sympathetic in the entire report to the insurgent’s cause.

    Nothing sympathetic? Truth is, the airing of the video lends support to the insurgency by 1) scaring the living hell out of the American public, and 2) demoralizing American troops in the field. If that’s not sympathetic, what is it?

    I find the rah-rah videos of cruise missles taking out buildings and all their occupants disturbing too.

    Not me. I’d like to see more evidence of our military might in use. What’s the point of having the best military in the world if you’re not going to use it?

    Posted by: Chris at October 28, 2006 12:04 AM
    Comment #191027

    Chris,

    If I do a broadcast on Nazi propaganda, I would have to use some footage of Nazi propaganda. That doesn’t mean the broadcast is propagandistic. You claimed CNN is doing everything it can to aid and abet the insurgents and terrorists and Iraq. Their broadcast does not support that claim.

    You can, of course, use enemy propaganda to create your own propaganda. See the recent Republican campaign ad using footage from Al Qaeda videos for an example.

    What is the difference? One uses enemy propaganda in a news report, which was not, as you claimed, “breathlessly narrated”: the other attempts to use fear to sway votes in the Congressional elections.

    If you say both are wrong, I can respect that opinion for consistency.

    Posted by: Trent at October 28, 2006 1:35 AM
    Comment #191070

    Trent:

    I have no idea what planet you would have to live on to think this report was left of center, unless any reporting that describes the hazards of our troops leftist. To imply that liberals want the enemy to win is either 1) idiotic or 2) deliberate lying.

    I wouldn’t expect you to view the report as biased because, well, you’re a liberal. So, you think I’m an idiot or a liar for stating my opinion that CNN’s airing of enemy propoganda is treasonous? Why don’t you go ahead and insult my dead mother while you’re at it? If you represent the majority of liberals, then I’d have to say that liberals are condescending, intolerant, disingenuous, and delusional. By your example, liberals are quick to lash out against those who can do them no real harm (e.g., Bush, Halliburton, Karl Rove, me) but are reticent to even acknowledge the existence of a pathological and ruthless enemy bent on slaughtering every last one if us.

    As for the rest of Chris’ article — typical angry ranting. Liberals are traitors, liberals want the terrorists to win, etc., etc.

    Perhaps I should have stated my position more clearly. I should have stated that liberals are behaving in a manner that will enable the terrorists to win. I think liberals want the U.S. to lose the war in Iraq because, in some twisted way, they think that losing the war will advance their agenda, i.e., regain political power here at home. I don’t think this is an active collusion or a vast left-wing conspiracy. It’s just parallel (albeit delusional) thinking.

    Well, you know, many in the Republican party have had enough of the incompetence and hair-brained “ideology” on the current crew in power. I’m personally sick to death of how often some on the right toss around the word “traitor.” It makes me think that to people such as Chris any reporting that doesn’t parrot the establishment line is dangerous.

    But the “establishment line” in this case is “We are losing the war in Iraq.” Go to just about any news source: ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC. The message is the same. That has been the message from the very beginning of this war, along with the repeated subtle and not-so-subtle insinuations about the incompetence of Bush, his advisors, and every single member of his Cabinet.

    Posted by: Chris at October 28, 2006 9:39 AM
    Comment #191091

    Lawnboy:

    Darn liberal bias in those darn facts.

    Your failure to even acknowledge liberal bias in the media is almost as annoying as your condescending pomposity.

    Chris, it’s really sad that you are so strongly defending anti-intellectualism. It’s just sad.

    So, I’m an anti-intellectual totalitarian apologist because I have the audacity to charge that many liberals can be smart, logical, and completely wrong? A lot of smart and logical liberals worked on LBJ’s “War on Poverty,” and what are the results?

    -Only 7.7 percent of Americans were born out of wedlock when the War on Poverty began. In 2004, that figure increased to nearly 36%. “Between 1940 and 1993 the number of nonmarital births occurring each year in the United States increased from 89,500 to 1,240,172 — nearly fourteen times the 1940 total.” (Centers for Disease Control)
    - In 1965, welfare spending was about $9 billion. In 2000, the total amount spent on welfare programs was over $430 billion.
    - Since 1965 we have spent $6 trillion on social service programs for the poor.

    As liberal failures go, the War on Poverty is a doozy. But it does prove that if you want to get more of something (in this case, poverty), subsidize it.

    The message you bring in your post is mostly hate-filled drivel.

    So I should endeavor to be more like you, I suppose, and post articles derisive of President Bush and his Administration? If I was merely seeking your approval, that’s probably what I’d do. But I am not seeking your approval, or anyone else’s, for that matter. I’m trying to articulate my position on various issues as I see them. Take it or leave it. Whatever floats your boat. One thing I will not do is post articles that would give “aid and comfort” to the enemy. I know who the enemy is, Lawnboy. They tend to be Islamic fundamentalist 7th century throwbacks. But there are also those among us who, wittingly or unwittingly, support their sick and twisted cause. You seem to think that President Bush is the enemy. I don’t.

    A large part of the reason your party is going down the crapper is this divisiveness I see in your post. You, and only you, know THE truth(!!). We live in a free country. We have a free press. They are reporting a sad, disturbing, and horrible truth.

    So now I’m a pontificating anti-intellectual totalitarian apologist. Awesome! I think I’ll print that on my business card. You’re right, though. We do live in a free country, but that freedom isn’t absolute. And there are some things you may have the right to do, but ought not. Filling a jar with urine and passing it off as “art,” for example. I’m not saying that CNN had a right to broadcast enemy propoganda, but even if it wasn’t treasonous, CNN ought not to have shown it. CNN demonstrated a callous disregard for our soldiers and their families by airing that footage.

    I personally was quite angry as I watched that piece. But not at CNN. I was angry at the enemy who has been pouring into Iraq for the chance at a shot at our military. I was angry at the pack of lying-ass mongrels who got us into this fiasco. I get even angrier when I read pathetic attempts to carry water for them. I nominate YOU for chief water boy!

    How fiendishly clever of you, Lawnboy! That little diatribe is bound to bring us all closer together. So you’re angry, but not at CNN. You’re angry at President Bush and not at the jihadist mongrels who are actually doing the shooting, killing, and beheading. As odd as it seems, I understand completely. It’s safer to blame our President and his Administration for everything because no one is going to raid your house in the dead of night, kill your chidren, rape your wife, and then torture you with a pair of vice-grips and piano wire.

    Why don’t you try hurling some of that fiendishly clever invective at the real enemy, Lawnboy? How about coming up with a plan that will help us win the war against the jihadists? Or have you “gone French” and given up already?

    Posted by: Chris at October 28, 2006 11:21 AM
    Comment #191108

    Chris,

    We disagree on the CNN piece. I see it as reporting on 1) enemy propaganda and 2) illustrative of the dangers our troops face. You seem to be taking the line that airing any enemy propaganda in any context is treasonous. In the CNN case, you think it illustrates that liberals want America to lose. There is such a disconnect between our perceptions that perhaps we will never be able to come to terms. From my point of view, you do not see the possibility of honest disagreement. If CNN or I disagree with you, in your view it is because we want the enemy to win. That is an enormous leap, and I suspect makes it easier for you to discount the views of others.

    I would like your opinion on enemy propaganda being used in a very naked way to sway U.S. elections. You didn’t speak to that point. As I said before, if you have a problem with that, at least you are being consistent.

    You know, Chris, I have lots of different views. It is true I lean to the left, but I certainly to not march lockstep with anyone. I challenge some views of “liberal” posters, too.

    Posted by: Trent at October 28, 2006 12:01 PM
    Comment #191115

    j2t2:

    I vote we change the red blog from “republicans and conservatives” to “Desolation Row” This post by Cris was a complete distoration and foolish name calling. Some people will stay the course beleiving that we are there in Iraq to find WMD’s and to bring democracy to Iraq. Yet they seem to fing the nerve to call others traitors, disgusting absolutly disgusting.

    It’s “chris,” actually.

    I think the symbol for Democrats should be changed from a donkey to a snapping turtle. When you guys latch on to an idea, you just never let it go. So, here we go again, Bush lied and people died. Every single person in the Bush Administration is no good. Bush directed the CIA to blow up the Twin Towers so he could invade Iraq and secure the oil for his buddies in the petroleum industry. The only reason Congress authorized Preisdent Bush to invade Iraq was because - as dimwitted as he is - Bush was able to orchestrate a worldwide fabrication of evidence showing that Hussein had WMD’s.

    I think “Desolation Alley” would sound better. It really rolls off the tongue. Try it - “des-oh-lay-shun aa-leeeeee.”

    CNN broadcasts enemy propoganda and passes it off as “news,” and I’m the one who’s disgusting. OK. Here goes (deep breath) … Now I’m a disgusting unpatriotic war-mongering conservative pontificating anti-intellectual totalitarian apologist … who is in denial.

    Posted by: Chris at October 28, 2006 12:22 PM
    Comment #191129

    Trent:

    We disagree on the CNN piece. I see it as reporting on 1) enemy propaganda and 2) illustrative of the dangers our troops face. You seem to be taking the line that airing any enemy propaganda in any context is treasonous.

    Yep. We disagree. I wrote “But when CNN’s track record is taken into consideration, sad to say it is not very surprising.” This isn’t an isolated event, Trent. CNN has maintained a consistent antiwar position from the very beginning of the conflict, and so have most of the other networks.

    An empirical study by Rich Noyes of the Media Research Institute reviewed 1,388 Iraq stories that appeared on the evening news of ABC, CBS, and NBC throughout 2005 and found that 61 percent of the stories were negative or pessimistic compared to only 15% that were positive. By August and September, the ratio of negative-to-positive increased tenfold.

    In the CNN case, you think it illustrates that liberals want America to lose.

    I think that’s fairly accurate, yes. I haven’t heard any plans (or “strategeries” as dubya would say) for victory from the left, and I fail to see how airing enemy propoganda advances or promotes our cause.

    There is such a disconnect between our perceptions that perhaps we will never be able to come to terms. From my point of view, you do not see the possibility of honest disagreement.

    Oh, we can have honest disagreements about equipment, tactics, and strategy. But what CNN and the rest of the liberal-based media are doing has nothing to do with an “honest disagreement” between people who desire the same ends.

    If CNN or I disagree with you, in your view it is because we want the enemy to win. That is an enormous leap, and I suspect makes it easier for you to discount the views of others.

    Like I said, we can disagree on equipment, tactics, and strategy and still be on the same page when it comes to fighting this godawful war. But broadcasting enemy propoganda and passing it off as news is, in my opinion, treasonous. And that’s all it is: My opinion. Calling me an unpatriotic war-mongering conservative pontificating anti-intellectual totalitarian apologist … who is in denial, doesn’t get me any closer to changing my opinion. Calling me names may solidify my position, just out of spite.

    I would like your opinion on enemy propaganda being used in a very naked way to sway U.S. elections. You didn’t speak to that point. As I said before, if you have a problem with that, at least you are being consistent.

    I’m not sure what you mean here, but I’m pretty sure it has something to do with me being an unpatriotic war-mongering conservative pontificating anti-intellectual totalitarian apologist … who is in denial. I’m nakedly trying to sway the election by charging CNN with treason for broadcasting enemy propoganda? Is that it?

    You know, Chris, I have lots of different views. It is true I lean to the left, but I certainly to not march lockstep with anyone. I challenge some views of “liberal” posters, too.

    That’s good to know, Trent. That will be of great comfort the next time you refer to me as an angry, contemptuous man who is so stupid that he can’t formulate a logical arguement.

    Posted by: Chris at October 28, 2006 1:23 PM
    Comment #191135

    Chris, I was referring to the Republican campaign ad which uses Al Qaeda video footage. I asked what you thought about it in an earlier post, which contains a link to it. So that long string of insults you inferred I was directing at you … nope, sorry, that’s your invention.

    Posted by: Trent at October 28, 2006 2:02 PM
    Comment #191140

    Chris,

    This study of negative/positive coverage of the Iraq War — what does that prove? If something is going badly, then coverage should reflect that. If well, then it should reflect that.

    As I remember, coverage of the war in the early stages in which we swept in and quickly kicked ass was pretty dang positive. Considering the success of the early stages, that’s what we’d expect coverage to reflect.

    Anyway, I don’t remember calling you names, but if I did, my apologies. I try to write with a cool head but don’t always succeed.

    Posted by: Trent at October 28, 2006 2:16 PM
    Comment #191151

    Metacom:

    During the Vietnam war, media was once again allowed to show the death and destruction of war. this brought war back into the face of Americans. Because of this, the vietnam war saw the largest mass of protests since the Civil War. Because of this, government once again banned the showing of death and destruction caused by a current war.
    Oh wait a minute! This is just more logic and reasoning. The evil knowledge and education that conservatives like to also refer to as Liberal bias.

    Vietnam was horribly mismanaged, that’s for sure. LBJ really made a mess of things, didn’t he? Nixon didn’t fare any better, until he at last unleashed the awesome might of our Air Force and bombed North Vietnam into submission. Imagine how many American and Vietnamese lives would have been spared if we had done that years before?

    Second, the war was about oil. It might not have been about the here and now access to oil, but more of future planning by attempting to stabilize the region, (and in doing so, setting it even further off balance).

    OK, that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. It’s kinda kooky, but if that’s what you want to believe, fine. I think it had more to do with the spread of international Communism and the diplomacy of brinkmanship, but I’m just a disgusting unpatriotic war-mongering conservative pontificating anti-intellectual totalitarian apologist … who is in denial. What do I know?

    How nieve can you cons possibly be about what is going on in the world today?

    I know what you meant to say, but I could just as easily say the same thing about you.

    Damn, you guys lost the fight with the summed up statement that Liberals on average are very intelligent and argue by using their intelligence and logic.

    The image of a snapping turtle comes to mind…

    Uhm, I never stated that liberals - on average - are very intelligent. I stated that many were smart, logical, and completely wrong. “Many” and “on average” are not equivalent descriptors. Did you think I was referring to you? How would you know?

    Christ, I think that’s why I don’t post frequently. I rarely see an intelligent debate. When I do, I usually feel as if I’m back to teaching in the Special Ed LD dept.

    I know what you mean. I feel the same way.

    Posted by: Chris at October 28, 2006 3:16 PM
    Comment #191152
    Your failure to even acknowledge liberal bias in the media is almost as annoying as your condescending pomposity.

    I haven’t even participated in the debate on media bias here, so don’t damn me for what I didn’t not say.

    I’m sorry that you think disagreeing with you is condescension. Let me know if there’s any way for us to counter your arguments and respond to your attacks without garnering this whining.

    So, I’m an anti-intellectual totalitarian apologist because I have the audacity to charge that many liberals can be smart, logical, and completely wrong?

    Did I call you a totalitarian apologist? No, someone else used that phrase. I guess you’ve gotten into the habit of putting words in my mouth. Fun, isn’t it?

    And your anti-intellectualism comes not from your disagreeing with liberals, but from your expressed disdain for education, logic, and reasoned debate.

    So I should endeavor to be more like you, I suppose, and post articles derisive of President Bush and his Administration?

    #3 for putting words in my mouth. Where are those articles? I haven’t been an editor on WB for about a year, and my articles were not how your describe them.

    If I was merely seeking your approval, that’s probably what I’d do. But I am not seeking your approval, or anyone else’s, for that matter.

    Why do you think we’re asking you to seek our approval? We’re merely asking you not to attack us for invented slights, and we’re asking you to show some level of respect for both the debating process and the other people here.

    I’m trying to articulate my position on various issues as I see them. Take it or leave it. Whatever floats your boat.

    That’s fine, but when you put those opinions on a public forum that is designed for debate, it’s best not to get huffy and defensive when people disagree with you. What response do you expect when you start out with partisan attacks, and you do it in a place where those who you attack will be reading?

    One thing I will not do is post articles that would give “aid and comfort” to the enemy.

    Good for you. But please don’t act like disagreeing with you or giving a factual account of something you don’t like is treason.

    I know who the enemy is, Lawnboy.

    Please remove the plank of condescension from your own eye before pointing out the sliver of condescension in mine.

    You seem to think that President Bush is the enemy. I don’t.

    #4. Oh well.

    So now I’m a pontificating anti-intellectual totalitarian apologist…How fiendishly clever of you, Lawnboy!

    #5. I didn’t say the words you’re attacking. That’s Steve Miller.

    Trent’s right, you should probably step away from the keyboard while you’re so angry. It’d be nice to debate with you, but your responses to our counter-arguments are emotional attacks using loaded words instead of responding to what we say. You’re so mad, it seems, that you’re not even checking who you’re yelling at.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at October 28, 2006 3:19 PM
    Comment #191154

    Trent:

    Chris, I was referring to the Republican campaign ad which uses Al Qaeda video footage. I asked what you thought about it in an earlier post, which contains a link to it. So that long string of insults you inferred I was directing at you … nope, sorry, that’s your invention.

    Trent, that long string of insults is a compilation contributed by you and your buds who posted comments here. And by “buds,” I just mean left-thinking liberals like yourself. Lanwboy, DavidL, j2t2, and others all contributed. You contributed one or more. I’m not going to post everything all over again. Read them yourself.

    I’m just throwing it right back.

    Posted by: Chris at October 28, 2006 3:25 PM
    Comment #191156
    You’re so mad, it seems, that you’re not even checking who you’re yelling at.

    After I posted, I see that from your 3:25 comment that you bunch together anyone that disagrees with you. Somehow, Trent is responsible for anything said by me, DavidL, j2t2, and others, and I’m responsible for what Steve Miller said.

    I’ll just say that such an approach is unreasonable, immature, and unfair, and I’ll leave it to you whether you want to continue with it.

    If I’m wrong in this interpretation, please explain how I’m wrong. If you can do it without whining or insulting me, it’ll be much more understandable.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at October 28, 2006 3:31 PM
    Comment #191182

    phx8:

    How does showing this video constitute treason?

    It was prepared by terrorists as a recruitment tool. CNN gave them more coverage than they could have ever hoped for. This is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, as far as I am concerned. That’s trason.

    Is Fox News also traitorous?

    When Foxnews broadcasts an enemy propoganda snuff video and passes it off as “news,” yeah.

    Why does a video on insurgent tactics and counter-insurgency demonstrate liberal bias? Is it treason to show an IED exploding? A car bomb? Is this CNN video treasonous only because it is video, rather than print? Are interviews with wounded vets treasonous?

    How disingenuous do you have to be before you cross over into self-delusion? This wasn’t a documentary about “insurgent tactics.” The video was prepared by terrorists and was intended to be shown to other terrorists or terrorist wannabes. And as I stated before, this is not an isolated event in the recent history of CNN reporting. It is simply the latest in a long string of antiwar, antiAmerican reports.

    Personally, I think the video is disturbing, but interesting, and definitely newsworthy.

    That doesn’t surprise me a bit.

    Posted by: Chris at October 28, 2006 5:03 PM
    Comment #191186

    Lanwboy:

    After I posted, I see that from your 3:25 comment that you bunch together anyone that disagrees with you. Somehow, Trent is responsible for anything said by me, DavidL, j2t2, and others, and I’m responsible for what Steve Miller said.

    I never said you were responsible for what anyone else said. You each contributed in your own way, and I just combined the descriptors into one long diatribe that could be read and enjoyed by all.

    I’ll just say that such an approach is unreasonable, immature, and unfair, and I’ll leave it to you whether you want to continue with it.

    Are you trying to bait me into adding those three words to the current list?

    Well, ok. But just for you.

    Now I’m an unreasonable immature unfair disgusting unpatriotic war-mongering conservative pontificating anti-intellectual totalitarian apologist … who is in denial.

    If I’m wrong in this interpretation, please explain how I’m wrong. If you can do it without whining or insulting me, it’ll be much more understandable.

    I insulted you?? I’m the Waterboy, remember? I post “hate-filled drivel.” You accuse me of being a whiny, sanctimonious clod who couldn’t string three words together to form a sentence, and I insulted you?

    Posted by: Chris at October 28, 2006 5:23 PM
    Comment #191188

    No, Chris.

    I’m not saying that you are immature. I’m saying that such an approach is immature. There’s a big difference.

    I wasn’t trying to bait you to add those words. I was asking you to try to rise above bad habits you fall into instead of engaging in honest, productive debate.

    Apparently, I was wasting my time.

    I insulted you?? I’m the Waterboy, remember?

    I didn’t say those words. Look back: it was “Steve Miller at October 23, 2006 11:17 PM”. Why do you continue to insist that I am responsible for someone else’s words? This gives lie to your claim that I never said you were responsible for what anyone else said. You never explicitly said the words, you just have done it.

    And yes, your posts consistently insult liberals.

    The claim that someone else made about “hate-filled drivel” isn’t an insult to you, it’s an opinion about your message. If you can’t separate the two, you are going to have a very difficult time in WatchBlog. This is a forum for discussing, dissecting, and rebutting each other’s claims. Some people (like both you and I sometimes) are rude about it. If you take every counter-argument and disagreeing impression as a personal attack, you won’t last long.

    You accuse me of being a whiny, sanctimonious clod who couldn’t string three words together to form a sentence
    Yes, I said that you were whining, because you were. However, the rest of that is just another made-up claim that you misattribute to me instead of responding well to disagreement. Do you see that as not whining? Posted by: LawnBoy at October 28, 2006 5:41 PM
    Comment #191190

    TomL:

    I’ve got an idea….let’s censor the media!

    I have an even BETTER idea. Let’s turn off the lights at CNN and revoke their broadcasting license. That would do for a start.

    You guys kill me. The American people can judge for themselves what they want to see or not see. They can judge if a report is news, opinion, or propaganda.

    That’s really funny. I remember liberals whining and moaning about how it was “too soon” to broadcast recorded footage of the Twin Towers burning and collapsing. “It’s just too soon” to air movies like “The Path to 9/11.” The American public just can’t handle it. But it wasn’t too soon to send “Farenheit 9/11” out to theaters nationwide, was it?

    It is heartening to hear from a liberal that he considers the American people to be intelligent enough to tell the difference between a news report and propoganda. Ordinarily, liberals act as though only they know what’s best for people. That’s one of the reasons why liberals can be relied upon to raise your taxes.

    Obviously the right thinks its traitorous…their right to have an opinion.

    The management at CNN can have whatever opinion their pointy little heads want to have. I could not care less, and neither should our government. It’s when their opinions spill over into their reporting of the “facts” that it becomes a problem.

    Posted by: Chris at October 28, 2006 5:56 PM
    Comment #191194

    Lawnboy:

    In contrast, what Chris’s post does is present a very narrow, distorted interpretation of actual reporting, completely misrepresent the legal basis of treason, and insult those that disagree with him.

    Have I represented myself as a news reporter, Lawnboy? No, I have not. I responded to the CNN broadcast of an insurgent video by writing an opinion. I did not lie about anything. I didn’t make anything up. And I did not insult anyone. If anyone is being misrepresented here, it’s me.

    Here is a web definition of treason:

    TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.
    The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

    Airing enemy propoganda - for whatever reason - to a potential audience of millions during a time of war meets the standard implied in the “aid and comfort” clause, in my opinion. An ACLU attorney would probably disagree. My lawyer would probably agree with me. But he’s a war-mongering conservative, like me.

    Posted by: Chris at October 28, 2006 6:22 PM
    Comment #191202
    Have I represented myself as a news reporter, Lawnboy? No, I have not.

    You’re right. So what? Are you claiming that writing an opinion piece means that you’re can’t be critiqued for errors?

    Actually, you support my point from the time. Someone else was crediting you with “Report(ing) what the media is doing”, and I said it wasn’t really reporting. I’m glad you agree.

    And I did not insult anyone.

    Perhaps you don’t think so, but you have. In the original post, calling liberals hedonists is an insult. The word “intelligentsia” has connotations of a connection to Russians and sometimes Marxism that make it an insult, if you were aware of them. Your characterization of liberal thinking as “propaganda” (as though there’s no conservative equivalent), is negative.

    Later, your insinuation that those of us that disagree with you were shills for George Soros is an insult.

    I could easily go on further, but it’s not worth descending into whining myself. In debate, you say negative things about us; we say negative things about you. It’s part of the way of things. Where it gets to be a problem is when you dish it but cannot take it. Further, the tone of a debate is often connected to the tone of the original post; the insulting tone there set the stage.

    If anyone is being misrepresented here, it’s me.

    You’re making it very hard for me to say that you’ve stopped whining.

    Airing enemy propoganda - for whatever reason - to a potential audience of millions during a time of war meets the standard implied in the “aid and comfort” clause, in my opinion.

    Hey, it’s fine if that’s your opinion. It’s not supported at all by the law, the precedent of law, or the way that treason has been applied consistently over the past 200 years, but it’s your opinion.

    And even though it’s your opinion, it’s completely acceptable for us to point out that your interpretation of “aid and comfort” is inconsistent with American legal precedent. In the history of the United States there have been fewer than 40 federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions. The paucity of charges means that the standard for conviction is a lot higher than a legitimate news organization showing in negative terms something factual from the war.

    Further, the “Aid and Comfort” clause cannot apply here. Aid and comfort may consist of substantial assistance or merely attempting to provide some support. There is neither Aid nor Comfort given to any of our enemies by showing a broadcast in the States that none of the enemies see with no intent to support the enemy.

    So, sure, you have an opinion, but I was quite right to describe your post as “completely misrepresent(ing) the legal basis of treason”.

    I’m not even sure why you brought this all back up from 4 days ago, but I guess you had a reason.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at October 28, 2006 7:07 PM
    Comment #191204

    Lawnboy:

    When you’re right, you’re right. You never made the “waterboy” comment. I’m trying to respond to all of the comments, and some just seemed to run together.

    I apologize for attributing the “waterboy” comment to you.

    Posted by: Chris at October 28, 2006 7:17 PM
    Comment #191205

    No problem, Chris.

    Thanks, and apology accepted.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at October 28, 2006 7:19 PM
    Comment #191206

    And I guess you just answered the last part of my October 28, 2006 07:07 PM comment, too.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at October 28, 2006 7:20 PM
    Comment #191213

    Lawnboy:

    I read your last post and couldn’t help but laugh. At myself. I forced myelf to re-read some of your comments, and now they seem less derisive than before. Maybe I am taking this all a little too seriously, a little too much “on the cuff.”

    And I do rave about liberals a lot. You’re right about that, too. I don’t like it when I’m accused of being a conservative so-and-so.

    I can’t believe I’m actually in agreement with a liberal about something. What will Mr. Rove think of me?

    As interesting as this topic is to me, I’m going to take your advice and step away from the keyboard. I’ve been posting replies to comments like mad throughout the day, thinking that I’d be able to reply to everyone. Not going to happen. There are just too many comments.

    I have a lot to think about.

    Posted by: Chris at October 28, 2006 7:41 PM
    Comment #191254

    Chris,

    Sounds like we’ve come to an interesting and useful point. Not necessarily agreement, but something good.

    See you in the next debate.

    Posted by: LawnBoy at October 28, 2006 11:22 PM
    Post a comment