Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
who would have thought....
>>>You have to be a complete moron to think that his actions were those of someone with nothing to hide.<<<
Sorry but the moron here is you......again. I never said he didn't try to hide something, nor did I try to defend him. I only pointed out that he did NOT succeed in protecting the guilty by destroying evidence since the originals were still intact on hard drives.
Scary lack of comprehension on your part....
"Sadly he succeeded in protecting the guilty".
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=21630876
Who's Bill Hobbs now? You've been crapped on for years here about not posting links to your stories and you still refuse to do it. A little weird to say the least but I'm sure you have your reasons. Like trying to add credibility to a story that doesn't have any by not revealing the extreme partisan nature of your source.
Appears that way unless he explains how destroying copies of something that's stored on hard drives destroys both the copies and the hard drives.
>>>one thing we know for certain. It had to be incredibly damning evidence against him and his boss in order for him to take such an outrageously stupid risk. Sadly he succeeded in protecting the guilty.<<<
What we also know for certain is that conspiracy crackpots exist on both sides. Thanks for demonstrating.
"After a long investigation, the lead prosecutor Noel Hillman, chief of the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, stated that Berger only removed classified copies of data stored on hard drives stored in the National Archives, and that no original material was destroyed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger
>>>but we do know who the people are the defend every criminal act, and it sure isn't republicans!<<<
Obviously, not much thought goes into what you post as long as it sounds good to you. Wanna talk about the republican in charge of the entire criminal justice system who's been lying to congress repeatedly and the republican president who admires him for doing so?
"FBI Director Robert S. Mueller said Thursday the government's terrorist surveillance program was the topic of a 2004 hospital room dispute between top Bush administration officials, contradicting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' sworn Senate testimony."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/26/politics/main3099718.shtml
"President Bush said his confidence in Alberto R. Gonzales has grown as a result of the attorney general's testimony last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/23/AR2007042301765.html
>>>You also disparage and ridicule his wife, his daughters, his parents<<<
You get extremely upset when people put words in your mouth so why do you think it's ok do do the same to others? I have never brought Bush's family into the discussion here, at least not in a disparaging way. To the contrary, I have praised Bush Sr. as a miracle of decency and statesmanship compared to his son.
>>>you could give him some credit for having some intelligence. One cannot become governor of Texas and a 2 term president of the United States while being a total idiot.<<<
Appears you can so I hereby give him credit for having the intelligence of the average idiot.
>>>You could also give him credit for rallying the nation after 9/11<<<
He DID get credit for that with 90% approval ratings for months. Not my fault that he threw it all away with dictator games and a foolish war.
>>>You could give him some credit for a decent economy, low unemployment, and a strong stock market<<<
I do give him credit for that but why have so few benefitted? A staunch conservative has written a book about it.
http://www.amazon.com/War-Middle-Class-Government-Business/dp/0670037923
>>>That will give you as good a definition of "irrational hatred"<<<
Frankly I think you're full of crap on this issue. Whether it's hatred, contempt, dislike or otherwise, the only reason for you to label it "irrational" is for you to disagree with those who hate or dislike George Bush. You think he deserves better. You think the bashers are irrational because they don't give him credit where it's due and they're just too harsh on him. So essentially they're irrational because they don't see Bush the way you see him.
I listened to a presidential historian today on MSNBC who was asked to comment on Bush's 65% disapproval rating which is 1% shy of Nixon's 66% four days before his resignation. This historian blamed a lot of it on Iraq BUT.......hastened to point out the lack of accomplishments over 6 years. In other words, even if people feel generous and give Bush a pass on Iraq, they can't find anything else to lean on in order to support his performance. Which begs the question: What exactly is it that you think irrational Bush haters fail to give him credit for that - were they rational - would ease their intense emotions towards him?
>>>Can someone here produce some verifiable evidence that Bush said it???<<<
Problem with those kind of requests is usually that nothing short of tape recordings will satisfy. For the record though.....
"Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.
Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml
>>>So, one poll justifies your self projected feelings of a black cloud covering the country.<<<
One poll? ALL polls have shown about 70% of the country disgusted for over a year now.
http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm
>>>most Americans are optimistic about the country<<<
A statistic based on what? The shadow cast by your cows during full moon?
More totalitarianism is better too. He has absolutely no problem with government abuse of power, secrecy and disdain for its citizens......as long as he's told he'll be safer if he doesn't object to it.
>>>have entered into the realm of irrational, blind hatred of Bush<<<
You call it irrational hatred. I call it a strong desire to get rid of a leader who not only doesn't lead but is destroying the spirit and the future of the country. Honestly........have you ever seen numbers this depressing in the past?
"73 percent of Americans said the country is pretty seriously on the wrong track, while 25 percent said things are going in the right direction."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/04/AR2007060401230_pf.html
>>>and when he did things well, I gave him credit for them. That is the difference between dislike, even intense dislike, and your irrational hatred.<<<
First off......what qualifies you to discern where to draw the line between intense dislike and hatred? Secondly........I was not a Clinton fan either but I sure as hell don't recall him presiding over the kind of national despair we're in the midst of now. When someone's broader policies are as destructive as Bush's and when they're combined with arrogance and indifference, things done well tend to be overshadowed.
I don't care if Bush opens 10 new soup kitchens in the Bronx because an hour later he trots out Alberto Gonzales and or Dick Cheney who both - with a smile on the faces - tell us to fu#k off as citizens and mind our own business. That's been the pattern and will obviously continue to be. You like to be treated like this by your elected officials and I don't which plays a big role in how we view this regime.
>>>It has long been very obvious that you and other Bush haters here will abhor anything that Bush does, be it right or wrong. Pitiful.<<<
Seriously.....I'm not asking this sarcastically but do you read newspapers or watch TV? George Bush represents the most colossal presidential failure in US history and yet you label criticism of him as irrational hatred by partisan liberals. Look at these numbers just out:
"BLITZER: OK. Let's move on to this "Washington Post"-ABC poll. "Who do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq? Thirty-two percent said President Bush, 55 percent said Democrats in Congress."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/24/sitroom.01.html
That's bad but gets even worse when you consider that the democratic congress is polling around 14% approval. Summed up...........55% of the US population trust a congress only 14% approve of more than they trust George Bush in handling the war.
So who looks more irrational here? Me in being critical of Bush or you never missing a chance to defend him? Not saying polls are the holy grail but these are extreme numbers.
>>>you are foolish to overreact so much for a rule that that is very restricted<<<
And you're foolish to overlook the fact that maybe it's not so much the rule itself that bothers me as it is the mindset of those (including you) who don't think we can beat terrorists unless we become more like them.
By the philosophy you support we can't get to the truth without torturing people and we can't prosecute effectively if we can't arbitrarily pluck people off the street and hold them secretly and indefinitely.
>>>you can somehow imagine a far fetched possibility of a US citizen being trapped in the net of this law<<<
There are all kinds of far fetched possibilities of US citizens being trapped in all sorts of legal nets which is why there are safeguards in place. One of those safeguards has been removed now and I don't care how remote you think the possibilities are. Principle and due process - not luck has been and should continue to be the backbone of US justice system imo. By the way.........my stance on this is more libertarian than liberal and yours more fascist than conservative.
>>>that it is better to let the terrorists do whatever they wish.<<<
Leaving habeas corpus alone is letting terrorists do whatever they want? Idiotic arguments like that is a big reason for the republican party's collapse. It's gone from the majority party to the laughing stock of politics..........mostly because they're frozen with irrational fear of terrorists and almost hypnotic loyalty to George Bush. As pathetic as it is to watch it's been a good cleansing process for the country.
>>>The suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is only for specific limited circumstances, and is not being suspended within the US for its citizens<<<
Actually it can apply to a US citizen which is what many have a problem with. If a US citizen is wrongfully arrested and accused of being an alien enemy combatant, how's he going to prove he's not when the suspension prevents him from questioning his detention?
I believe your argument here is that this is unlikely to happen which means there's still a possibility which also means it can apply to US citizens. And you're ok with that.
>>>I believe the VP lost his senses. Not only is the argument rather vapid, but it is totally unnecessary<<<
You think he lost his senses and kept losing his senses for months and weeks? And the lawyers involved in arguing his point, you think they were asked if this was sensible or were they asked to find a way to argue for its sensibility?
>>>Tell me about Republican hypocrisy, liberal jackass<<<
It's a long read and it's late so maybe save it for prayer breakfast.
Here.........just to get you started and prepped in case you wake up with your children:
Republican legislator Ted Klaudt was charged with raping girls under the age of 16.
Republican city councilman Joseph Monteleone Jr. was found guilty of fondling underage girls.
Republican congressional aide Jeffrey Nielsen was arrested for having sex with a 14-year old boy.
Republican County Commissioner Patrick Lee McGuire surrendered to police after allegedly molesting girls between the ages of 8 and 13.
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
>>>My statement about Bush and Cheney not wanting to "abrogate" the Constitution is based entirely on their lack of intent or desire to do any harm to the Constitution<<<
For a while I may have agreed with you on that but no more. You honestly believe that neither Bush, nor Cheney understood the implication of suspending habeas corpus in terms of assaulting the constitution?
"The concept was so well established at the time of the founding of the American Republic that the framers of the Constitution allowed suspensions of the right only under narrow circumstances. Article I, Section 9, states, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it"
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/12/04/061204fa_fact
And you also believe that Cheney really doesn't understand that he's part of the executive branch? I watch and read a lot of political news and I honestly can't recall a single conservative who felt they could side with Cheney on this nonsense.
"The man a heartbeat away from the Oval Office asserts that some rules that apply to everyone else in the executive branch do not apply to him.
Cheney has refused to comply with a request from the National Archives to hand over classified documents. The vice president's office insists that, unlike every other employee of the executive branch, that rule does not include him and his staff."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3316434
Tells you everything you need to know. They don't respect the constitution but they respect the right to crap on it for the purpose of maintaining power at any cost. And you seem to like that which makes you the kind of conservative that seem to defy everything they used to stand for.
>>>Neither Bush nor Cheney is engaged in an attempt to abrogate the Constitution of the United States.<<<
You're probably right about that since they don't have enough time left to trash it entirely. In the meantime though, how the hell do you say with a straight face that these two don't govern with open contempt for the constitution?
"The president claims an inherent power to imprison American citizens whom he has determined to be this country's enemies without obtaining a warrant, letting them hear the charges against them, or following other safeguards against wrongful punishment guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Under his administration, the government has engaged in inhumane treatment of prisoners that amounts to torture — and when Congress passed legislation to ban such treatment, he declared he would simply interpret the law his own way. Although the Constitution says treaties are the "supreme law of the land," the president has abrogated them on his own. And, we now know, he ordered a secret program of electronic surveillance of Americans without court warrants.
But there is something more dangerous than any of these specific abuses and usurpations, and that is the theory of inherent powers that Bush invokes to justify most of these actions"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/21/opinion/main1334435.shtml
The man a heartbeat away from the Oval Office asserts that some rules that apply to everyone else in the executive branch do not apply to him.
Cheney has refused to comply with a request from the National Archives to hand over classified documents. The vice president's office insists that, unlike every other employee of the executive branch, that rule does not include him and his staff."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3316434
So what if they don't officially declare a wish to abrogate the constitution? Ignoring it or forcing WH lawyers to craft cartoonish interpretations of it is less offensive to you?
>>>All evidence proves he was WRONG, not lied.<<<
Only his dissolving fan club still believe in that fantasy.
"On at least four earlier occasions, beginning in the spring of 2002, according to the same records and sources, the president was informed during his morning intelligence briefing that U.S. intelligence agencies believed it was unlikely that Saddam was an imminent threat to the United States.
However, in the months leading up to the war, Bush, Cheney, and Cabinet members repeatedly asserted that Saddam was likely to use chemical or biological weapons against the United States or to provide such weapons to Al Qaeda or another terrorist group.
The disclosure that Bush was informed of the DOE and State dissents is the first evidence that the president himself knew of the sharp debate within the government over the aluminum tubes during the time that he, Cheney, and other members of the Cabinet were citing the tubes as clear evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program. Neither the president nor the vice president told the public about the disagreement among the agencies.
On October 7, 2002, less than a week after Bush was given the summary, he said in a speech in Cincinnati: "Evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his 'nuclear mujahedeen' -- his nuclear holy warriors.... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0302nj1.htm
If you understand the definition of "lie", you also understand that Bush lied and that he did it frequently and with ease.
lie2 (lī)
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
>>>Look at the results of recent elections- the country is about evenly divided between dems and reps<<<
See.....this is what happens when you live on a pig farm in one of the fly-over belts (corn & bible). You get the news 3 years later than everyone else. The 2004 election is ancient history and completely useless for statistics as is the 2006 mid-term.
June 5, 2007
DOBBS: And we -- we should point out that the average of our polling, with the Opinion Research Corporation polls, over the past five months shows about 42 percent of the -- nationally, 42 percent of Americans identifying themselves first as independents, and then 33 percent as Democrats, 25 percent as Republicans."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/05/ldt.01.html
>>>The question that I (and many others) have is did Libby actually lie or did he rely on faulty memory<<<
That possibility was addressed by the prosecution, the jury that convicted him and 4 judges and was soundly rejected by all.
But mainly, Libby is betting on what one lawyer calls his "busy man defense."
The defense is unusual because Libby is in essence admitting that he might not have told the truth, which lawyers said is a risky gambit in perjury cases, where defendants usually argue that what they said was technically true or that they were confused by the questions posed to them. They said they could not recall another case where it had been tried in court.
Jeffrey Frederick, a Charlottesville, Va., jury consultant, said the test for Fitzgerald would be showing that the conversations with journalists dealt with a subject that was so important that a reasonable person would have remembered it. That could be tough for Libby to overcome because the subject matter was the war and Wilson - whom the White House clearly had concerns about.
"We are not talking about whether you had tuna or sirloin on a Friday night," Frederick said.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.libby16jan16,0,6265238.story?track=rss
>>>Fitzgerald knew the whole time who really "outed" Plame (Richard Armitage) so his whole investigation was a sham and a fishing expedition to begin with,<<<
I never understood this argument. Any prosecutor building his case for any crime will ask questions high and low, left and right or wherever he feels he can get an another piece of the puzzle. Libby was front and center of this whole story and Fitzgerald would have been criminally negligent had he not asked him questions. Libby is an attorney and a smart man and surely understood what he was up against. Yet you still believe he unknowingly lied 5 times in front of a grand jury?
If you'd been in Libby's shoes, would you - under oath - wish yourself good luck and just mouth off hoping your memory served you or would you be honest and say you just couldn't recall for sure?
>>>You know nothing of their judicial record to qualify them as conservative or liberal.<<<
Is it fair to say that presidents like to appoint judges who they believe share their political philosophy? I think you have to answer yes to that. You can point to Souter all day long to make your case and it'll still stink since he was considered a conservative when he was appointed by Bush and voted accordingly early on. He's obviously not lived up to the hard right's expectations which could just as well mean the right has drifted further right rather than Souter drifting further left.
Initially, from 1990-93, he tended to be a conservative-leaning Justice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter
Conclusion: Conservative presidents don't appoint liberal judges.
>>>Your assertion that because a judge is appointed by a certain president that they will always rule favorably to the presidents party or philosophy is incredibly naive<<<
It would be naive if that's what I'm asserting but it's not. I was asserting that when three out of four judges involved here are conservatives it seems like an extreme reach to insist that liberal partisan politics played a major role.
The reason you're having such an awful time with this is because of your complete lack of integrity. It's impossible for you to accept that one of your own would actually do the right thing as opposed to the party thing. "If he decided against Libby he's obviously not a conservative". Simple as that.
>>>the injustice and partisan politics came in a special prosecutor run amok<<<
Well, then explain why Libby felt compelled to lie 5 times to a grand jury defending himself against a non-issue. Nobody except the extreme hard right fringe of the country (thankfully an increasingly irrelevant bunch) has any compassion for his behavior.
"Shortly after Libby was convicted in March, three national public opinion polls found that seven in 10 Americans said they would oppose a pardon of Libby."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/02/AR2007070200825.html
And to repeat.......if the neoconservative argument you represent was valid, why did 3 conservative judges dismiss it as invalid......repeatedly?
>>>Not to mention that the sentence was excessive by any standard.<<<
Wrong again. Every single judge or attorney I have seen interviewed on the issue have said the same thing: Sentencing was in accordance with current guidelines.
"Assuming that Scooter doesn't have more than one previous conviction for something like DUI, he's got a guideline Offense Level of 17 or 20 points, with no other enhancements bringing it up or credits bringing it down. That's 24-30 months or 33-41 months. Keep in mind that the Judge can use his discretion to go outside the guidelines in any one of 3 ways: give Scooter 2 points off for accepting responsibility (which is unlikely, 'cause it'd require that either effectively confess guilt, ending any appeal hopes, or that the Judge find that the guy has accepted responsibility when he clearly hasn't -- but hey, Martha Stewart’s judge did exactly that); find that his age or health entitles him to some downward departure; or just scrap a bunch of time for shits and giggles.
My guess is 24 months -- the low end of the range for a 17 point offense level. There's also a possibility that the US Attorney could ask for a reduction under Rule 5K or Rule 35 for some sort of substantial assistance, but I wouldn’t hold my breath that Scooter's now going to help, and I wouldn't imagine that Fitzgerald is going to do anything unless Scooter can give up the secret information tying W to Saddaam in a gay sex-for-drugs scheme that took place in Rumsfeld's den."
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2007/03/more_libby_sent.html
>>>what was a purely partisan and excessive prosecution resulting in a totally inappropriate sentence. I personally favored a straight out pardon<<<
Partisan and excessive? I'm listening but it's not adding up. Judge Walton who not only sentenced Libby but also refused his request to stay out of jail during appeal was appointed by GW Bush.
"Walton served as an Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia from 1981 to 1989 and from 1991 to 2001. He also served as associate director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy and was appointed in 2001 to his lifetime seat on the federal bench by President George W. Bush."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggie_Walton
Then......a three-judge appeals panel including one Reagan nominee and one George H.W. Bush nominee denied the same request.
"Libby may be behind bars within weeks after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today denied his request for release.
The three-judge appeals panel that issued today's order included Judges David Sentelle, nominated by President Ronald Reagan; Karen LeCraft Henderson, nominated by President George H.W. Bush, and David Tatel, nominated by President Bill Clinton
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a68_Td7qIB80&refer=home
Where's your evidence of partisan politics here? With the exception of one lousy appeals judge, every judge having a hand in Libby's fate has been a Bush or Reagan appointee.
>>>I heard more today about 2 cars in London that COULD have exploded than about our brave military STILL dying in Iraq's civil war.<<<
Nor did you hear much about this new poll because of those 2 cars:
Poll: Calls To Get Out Of Iraq Escalate
77% In CBS News Poll Say War's Going Badly, 40% Urge Withdrawal Of All U.S. Troops
NEW YORK, June 29, 2007
(CBS) A CBS News poll shows Americans are increasingly dissatisfied with the Iraq war, President Bush and the Congress, as well as the overall direction of the country.
More Americans than ever before, 77 percent, say the war is going badly, up from 66 percent just two months ago. Nearly half, 47 percent, say it's going very badly.
While the springtime surge in U.S. troops to Iraq is now complete, more Americans than ever are calling for U.S. forces to withdraw. Sixty-six percent say the number of U.S. troops in Iraq should be decreased, including 40 percent who want all U.S. troops removed. That's a 7-point increase since April.
HOW IS THE WAR GOING?
Well
22%
Badly
77%
Fewer than one in five thinks that the troop increase is helping to improve the situation in Iraq, while about half think the war is actually creating more terrorists.
The poll has bad news for President Bush, too. His job approval rating slipped to 27 percent, his lowest number ever in a CBS News poll — 3 points less than last month and 1 point below his previous low of 28 percent in January. His disapproval rating is also at an all-time high of 65 percent.
U.S. TROOP LEVELS IN IRAQ SHOULD
Increase
11%
Keep the same number
17%
Decrease
26%
Remove all troops
40%
"Presidents usually have popularity problems in their last two years in office," said Kathy Frankovic, CBS News director of surveys. "But the combination of shrinking support for the war in Iraq and opposition to domestic initiatives like the immigration bill has made assessment of this administration especially negative.
"Americans don't only disapprove of the president; they overwhelmingly see the country as on the wrong track," Frankovic said
But Congress also fared poorly in the poll. Its approval rating was also at 27 percent — a 9-point drop from last month. Nearly six in 10 among those surveyed said the 110th Congress has accomplished less during the last six months than Congress usually does.
Vice President Dick Cheney received a similarly low rating, with 28 percent approval and 59 percent disapproval.
The poll found a record number of Americans, 75 percent, believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. Only 19 percent think the U.S. is on the right track — the lowest number since CBS News first asked the question in 1983.
DIRECTION OF THE COUNTRY
Wrong track
75%
Right direction
19%
There's also rising concern about America's standing in the world.
Seven in 10 Americans say the United States is not respected around the world today. More than half say President Bush's foreign policy has made world leaders less likely to cooperate with the U.S.; just 10 percent say he's made foreign leaders more agreeable.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/29/opinion/polls/main2998882.shtml
>>>What I actually said:<<<
What you actually said was this:
..your statement that all right wing talk hosts do is feed people lies is typical of the elitist bias that exists among most delusional libs. Rather than respecting differences of opinion, they just classify all dissenting opinions as " lies " and want to ban that free speech
I.E...... what critics of rightwing talk radio call lies are really not lies at all but just "dissenting opinions".
>>>I note also you can't bring yourself to actually answer my question and provide examples of left wing lying.<<<
Gave you a whole website of it yesterday. Oh, there......I just said it. Yesterday.........you already forgot.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=20838281
>>>Early onset Alzheimer's???.........First you misread my post to say I said right wing radio hosts never lie<<<
Talking to yourself? This is how you started it.....some 5 posts and 2 days ago.
..your statement that all right wing talk hosts do is feed people lies is typical of the elitist bias that exists among most delusional libs. Rather than respecting differences of opinion, they just classify all dissenting opinions as " lies " and want to ban that free speech
Pretty straightforward actually. "Right wing talk show hosts don't lie. Liberals just refuse to respect their dissenting views and call them lies."
That's how this thread got started. Not from the sentence you quoted me on which was made with a lot of discussion in between.
Wish I had a nickel for each of these little victory laps you've done as if you think you finally scored. Bluster, contempt and all. Sadly for you they all end the same way.......with the realization that you didn't score at all but just made a fu#*ing ass of yourself again after losing track of your own posts.
>>>I was thinking left wing lies<<<
http://www.frankenlies.com/
Making progress albeit slowly. First you more or less suggest talk radio freaks don't lie. And now it's........"well maybe they do BUT not just the on right".
>>>he's stretching really hard to keep the myth going though...<<<
And he's still getting away with it but for different reasons than before. For 3 years after 9/11 he could say anything he wanted because 75% of the country thought he was relevant to their survival. Now he can say anything he wants because 75% of the country see him as a joke and totally irrelevant in general.
>>>Just curious if you can think of examples or were you just being PC here?<<<
Limbaugh: "We don't retract anything we do here because we never lie and make things up on this program"
And here are some examples of misstatements, lies, and distortions from The Rush Limbaugh Show: (14 to be exact, all of them documented in detail)
http://mediamatters.org/items/200502180006
>>>There is tons of evidence linking AQ and Iraq.<<<
"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
>>>Rush citing an article doesn't mean he is espousing the same idea.<<<
Unless he says he doesn't (which in this case he didn't), guess what his audience will believe.
>>>whether you think that right wing talk radio should be censored by some sort of "fairness doctrine<<<
nope.....but I think right and left talk radio should be called on the carpet and be required to correct themselves when they're caught lying. This anything goes crap on the airwaves serves no purpose other than creating ignorant fools who think they know everything.
>>>Please provide a link to anyone on popular talk radio that has said that Iraq attacked us on 9/11 and that stockpiles of WMD were found in Iraq at the start of the war. Hint: you'll be wasting your time<<<
Took about 30 seconds to find this:
"RUSH: There's a newspaper out there called the World Tribune. I saw it on their website, and they make no bones about the fact that there's a story over the weekend that the weapons of mass destruction are routinely being found, evidence of them.
But that's why I was saying, it's sort of curious that even though that there are now -- if you don't believe this, if you don't believe that there are firm links that connect Al-Qaeda to Iraq, there's a piece in the Wall Street Journal today, and it's a great piece."
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/rush_04.html
>>>Amazing how talk radio is the ONLY media form that has a decidedly right wing bias and it just drives the libs crazy.<<<
Unusually retarded even by your standards. It's not the bias that's maddening but the lies and distortions that have real influence on the general direction of the country. New poll out says 2 out of 10 americans still think Iraq attacked us on 9/11 and that stockpiles of WMD was found in Iraq at the beginning of the invasion (both claims declared false by both Bush & Cheney repeatedly). Gee....I wonder what % of those morons get their news from talk radio and I wonder who would be president today if they hadn't cast their 2004 votes based on lies they were fed by their radio hosts.
They took power away from the right despite what you seem to think is a rightwing political dynamic sweeping the country. That's the point. Not what people think of their work. Safe bet a republican led congress wouldn't fare any better right now.
>>>That's the meme the libs use to try and disguise their lack of understanding of the political dynamic in this country.<<<
The political dynamic that's taken Bush from 89% to 26% and cost the republican congress 40 seats.........that's what you're talking about?
>>>Get your hands off our talk radio<<<
well...let's hope they leave it alone. Radical right talk radio may have helped sustain 6 1/2 years of the worst presidency in US history but it has also given voters a lesson in what radical conservatism feels like and it's been soundly rejected.
Enjoy the next year and a half of hard right rule. Almost guaranteed it'll never happen again in our lifetime.
A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency
With excellent prose and gifted elegance Glenn explains how the Manichaean morality (derived from a third century B.C. popular religion founded by the Persian prophet Manes ), and President Bush's single-minded dependence on basic, binary, good vs. evil themes have rendered his presidency a failure.
"The ultimate paradox of Manichean morality, of the Manichean warrior, is that the most amoral, even morally monstrous, behavior is justified in its name. Those who begin with the premise that they are acting on behalf of pure Good are incapable of recognizing limits of any kind. How can those who are waging a Battle in defense of Good against Evil possibly err? How could limits of any kind on triumph in that Battle be justified? And most of all, how could Warriors for Good possibly themselves ever engage in Evil acts?
The Bush legacy is defined by the Manichean paradox."
_____________________________________________________________
At a certain point in such a career, you kind of feel like your political framework is basically set, that though there is a lot of new information to learn the basic contours of how to understand our political system are in place. Not so. I read this book, and it helped me understand the danger of dogmatic thinking, the danger of writing off debate, and the importance of humility. It's not that, morally speaking, humility is a nice trait. What Greenwald shows is that the lack of said trait, and the absolute certitude of mind is at the core of how Bush has operated and how this man has destroyed himself, his Presidency, and how we as a country have ruined a great deal of our national fiber. It's an important idea that deserves wide discussion.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307354199?ie=UTF8&tag=dailykos-20&linkCode=as2&camp=17...
>>>pouring water on there heads is not torture.<<<
Another Bush fanatic without a clue.
Waterboarding is a form of torture[1] or more specifically water torture or water cure.
Waterboarding consists of immobilizing an individual and pouring water over his face to simulate drowning, which produces a severe gag reflex, making the subject believe his death is imminent while ideally not causing permanent physical damage. "The threat of imminent death" is one of the legal definitions of torture under U.S. law [2].
There have been many reports that the United States has used waterboarding to interrogate prisoners captured in its War on Terrorism. In November 2005, ABC News reported that former CIA agents claimed the CIA had engaged in a modern form of waterboarding.......On October 27, 2006 during a radio interview with Scott Hennen of radio station WDAY, Vice President Dick Cheney apparently agreed with the use of waterboarding, specifically mentioning Khaled Sheikh Mohammed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
>>>David Shuster has been filling in for Tucker Carlson<<<
Probably not much longer..