Jed Clampett

In case you haven’t figured it out yet… the Earth is the theater, we are the spectators and those greedy bastards that control most of the wealth are the ones lighting the fires.
The main problem… there are no exits, unless you consider death an exit instead of just a scene change and time shift that takes your awareness and ability to do something for yourself and others. So we must try to wake up those that are so entertained and mesmerized by the images displayed on the screen in order to turn into firefighters instead of paying spectators of their eminent demise. And for God’s sake, put those who are setting the fires in prison or show them the exits, or the fires will never be controlled.

Peace

Jed Clampett

To continue the story of the guy in the theater. What is meant by the ‘yelling fire in a theater’ analogy, is that you don’t panic people by presenting them with false information. The premise being that by playing on people’s emotions in order to manipulate them into doing what you want is a dangerous endeavor, you may just loose control of your little monster and create a stir that ends up causing more death and destruction than taking care of the initial fire in an appropriate manner to begin with.
That said, we must realize that in this crazy world of ours there are those that will in effect slip away quietly and let the herd fend for itself when the fire intensifies; there are others who will ignore or disbelieve they see the fire and simply keep enjoying the movie; then, there are those who will rush towards the fire, understanding it’s threat intuitively and realizing the exits will be clogged up anyway, they try to help everyone in the theater by putting the fires out; unfortunately, there are still others that are willing to set the fires in the first place for some selfish or unconscious reason or another.

If we don’t have truth and objectivity, intense, in-depth scrutiny of an issue, then we are not facing the reality of the situation or understanding it completely instead of accepting a facade. Reacting to the facade can cause us to panic and act in ways that are detrimental to our survival. What’s the use of having 24 hour news channels if they are going to repeat the same stories over and over like commercials, and what’s the purpose of a commercial? To s.ell a product by assoc.iating it with a fantasy and repeating it over and over until it becomes pseudo truth.

Peace

Judging by TinMan’s post in the earlier thread, perhaps the rule of law is going to be applied with some discrimination; just as it has been for the past eight years.

How can you repudiate such a gross violation of civil rights WITHOUT impugning the perpetrators!!??!!

The key to good public policy is to solve problems without creating other problems. I’m not sure that your solution would be better.

That said, I would be generally for a solution that would reduce the power of the media giants in this country.

Some solutions might include a rollback of media consolidation, the open distribution of the frequency spectrum, and establishing an FCC that would regulate this resource for the people instead of the corporate media. And, yes, maybe it would be good to bring back some form of the fairness doctrine.

Unfortunately, President-elect Obama has already said that he does not support the resurrection of the fairness doctrine.

TinFoilHat,

You wrote, “I was actually envisioning the idea of a ‘citizen’s panel’ trying to come to some objective view in regards a controversial issue. That would definitely be a clusterF&ck.”

It doesn’t HAVE to be a citizens’ panel, but it IS probably the best way to bring about media democracy.

Maybe a better way is to have a panel review the broadcasts before they go out and “flag” them like on YouTube or any blog. The news reader would have to note publicly that that particular report was flagged and state the reason it was flagged, just like on the internet.

It’s a lot better to have a clusterf_ck than corporate media control or even journalists media control, as it is now. It’s better to have peoples’ media control, or media liberation altogether by opening up the frequencies to free entry and exit.

Clusterf_ck “citizen panels” called “juries” are good enough for life & death criminal trials in courts of law. They are good enough for media adjudication and regulation. It’s called “Media Democracy” governing the “peoples’” airwaves.

Media,

Don’t you think that’s a little silly? I wasn’t talking about exactly proportional reporting of fact based on statistical analysis of phenomenon. That would never work because the stats usually don’t come out until the end of the year (if they are tabulated at all). Seem dumb to make a law like that (to me anyway).

I was actually envisioning the idea of a ‘citizen’s panel’ trying to come to some objective view in regards a controversial issue. That would definitely be a clusterF&ck.

TinFoilHat,

You wrote, “The idea is that in the case of CONTRAVERSIAL issues aired on public frequencies, that some attempt must be made to present both sides of the issue. The people held responsible are the licensees.”

The news and documentaries cover controversial issues. And yes, some attempt must be made to ensure all sides of the news and of an issue are covered.

You also wrote, “Jed brought up the concept of the megaphone, and that is exactly right. Its OUR megaphone that they are using for this crap, therefore we have a right to set the ground rules by the definition “in the public interest”.”

The public interest is to have accurate, complete and objective information so as to be able to make good electoral decisions i.e. vote intelligently in an electoral democracy. If it is OUR megaphone, it is in the public interest that it be broadcasting truth and objectivity in the news and documentaries.

This is scarcely a new phenomenon nor is the controversy. You can go back to the Federalist Papers and make the argument that they were biased and manipulative.

When do ‘reasoned arguments’ become invective? I think we all know the answer to that, but also recognize what a fine line lies between the two. A gifted orator could sway the masses into a feeding frenzy of pogroms without spraying the front row with spittle.

I fear that orator more than I fear the likes of Limbaugh. However, I fear the feeble-minded who listen to Limbaugh more than I do the skilled orator.

The problem, then, lies in the ignorance of the masses. If they WANT to be misled, and there’s considerable evidence to support that they do, then blaming the ‘leaders’ is pointless. Remove them and others will follow.

Hereabouts, those that voted AGAINST Obama now are saying that the economy isn’t the issue, pointing, instead, to such things as gun control and right to life issues, as if the Prez had much to do with them. THEY are the problem, not those jerks with the mics.

TinFoilHat,

You wrote, “The problem with your argument is the idea of “proportional”. Even the old fairness doctrine did not require proportional representation.”

If legislation will be proposed to bring back the old, why not improve it with something new? It’s time for change we can believe in.

As for defining “proportional”, my post was quite clear, “if half the murders in a city are by firearm and half be other means, the media could spend no more than half their coverage of murders by shooting and would have to spend the rest covering those by other means.” That sounds pretty clear to me if half are by shooting, then shooting get half the coverage and emphasis, the other types receive coverage accordingly. The types of murders are a matter of public record compiled in police reports. So it is all very objectively checkable.

TinFoilHat

You wrote, “I believe the first amendment is sacrosanct and should be preserved completely.”

If that’s the case, the government shouldn’t be involved at all - no “fairness doctrine”, no FCC licensing, anyone who wants to broadcast claims an open frequency in an open locale and starts broadcasting. All the FCC would do is keep broadcasters from stepping on each other.

But if there is going to be regulation, it is MUCH more important to the public interest that broadcasts purporting to be news and objective actually be news and objective, in both content and emphasis. People already KNOW that the conservative loudmouths on talk radio are voicing their opinion, not objective news. So the people can account for it and adjust their judgment knowing it is opinion not necessarily fact. But if a news story that the public thinks is fact is not actually fact, rather misleading, false or mere opinion, then the public is being mislead or lied to and that is MUCH more dangerous to the public good than conservative loudmouth that everyone knows is just a loudmouth.

If anything is to be regulated in the public interest, it is much more important that the new broadcasts and documentaries upon which we all depend to make decisions be regulated to ensure truth and objectivity, than it is to regulate talk radio opinion which everyone knows is only opinion.

Jed Clampett

You should always be allowed to express your thoughts, ideals, frustrations and criticisms. You have no right however to express yourself in such a way that abuses or endangers others, by physical endangerment or suppression of THEIR right to express themselves. I believe the term is civility. Kindness and hatred are two extremes of the same thing, they only vary by degrees. While there will always be those who are uneducated, vile and abusive in their speech, they are not protected in heaping that abuse, vileness and ignorance on others. That is what a free country SHOULD be about, freedom to pursue happiness and not have some extremist moron incite other more ignorant morons into attacking you physically, denying you a job or subjecting you to other prejudices and abuses disseminated through demagogery.

Peace

We don’t need to worry about guys like Rush and OReally and Handtitty anymore…….Their message has been overwhelmingly refuted in the form of an overwhelmingly huge electoral college vote. Their ‘cater to the fear of whites’ has been shoved into the basement of society. The whole party has been able to engulf itself in the concept of smear for the last 50 years. But, it seems to be coming to a scratching halt.
HeadRush Limpuke, Blab OReally, and Shun Handtitty are going to have to reform their message also. It’s not sticking to the wall anymore………

Media,

You misunderstand my position. The problem with your argument is the idea of “proportional”. Even the old fairness doctrine did not require proportional representation. Your idea of a citizen’s panel would quickly turn into a partisan clusterF&ck. The idea is that in the case of CONTRAVERSIAL issues aired on public frequencies, that some attempt must be made to present both sides of the issue. The people held responsible are the licensees. Jed brought up the concept of the megaphone, and that is exactly right. Its OUR megaphone that they are using for this crap, therefore we have a right to set the ground rules by the definition “in the public interest”.
This is shaky ground to walk on. I believe the first amendment is sacrosanct and should be preserved completely. That is why I refuse to take a hard line against this type of speech. On the other hand, those who lease the airwaves and air “news” need to be held accountable (preferably by the public) to present something approaching reality.

TinFoilHat,

You wrote, “I would not mind seeing big media forced to use our airwaves to present a more balanced picture of events.”

I wouldn’t mind that either, especially broadcast news and documentaries. If a documentary or news story or general news coverage is alleged to be biased or non-objective, then the station or network that aired it should be held liable in front of a citizen’s media review board empowered by federal legislation to hear such cases.

For example, if a station always covers shootings but never or rarely covers stabbings and beatings, they should be compelled to devote proportional time and proportional emphasis. So if half the murders in a city are by firearm and half be other means, the media could spend no more than half their coverage of murders by shooting and would have to spend the rest covering those by other means.

The citizen review board would have the power to compel the broadcast media to cover it as such, The citizens’ media review board would be drawn from a pool of citizen volunteers like voluntary jury duty.

Jed Clampett

I kind agree with TFH and Gliebe on some levels… we have the right to say whatever we want, but not to disseminate it to the masses with a huge megaphone that is difficult if not impossible to avoid. There has to be some sense of responsibility expected from those that receive broadcasting licenses from ‘we the people’ via the FCC.

If there is actually a fire in a crowded theater, would you be justified then if you saw said fire starting and to avoid a stampede and possibly being trampled yourself, you quietly slipped out of the theater and left the moviegoers to fend for themselves?

Though it probably would save your life and allow others to perish, I doubt this would be the desired course of action either.

What bothers me about what the extremist radio talk show and television hosts that TFH introduced us to with his link and Jon Stewart exposed on the Daily Show last night is that these guys LIE to their public in order to MANIPULATE their gullible minds and work them up into a frenzy, or fear, or hate. A tactic used to mastery in the rise to power of the nationalist soc.ialists earlier mentioned.

So what is it exactly about ‘yelling Fire in a crowded theater’ that would be considered illicit while making racist, feminist, hateful statements in the larger stage of the nation’s airwaves is sanctioned?

If you analyze Oreally’s appearance on the Daily Show last night, he gave you a sense of what he really fears… after Jon so expertly tore down his shields with a cup of co.coa and a stuffed bear. That he’ll be out of a job, the job of manipulating the masses for an Australian extremist oligarch. He also showed the same tactics in debate that seem to be homogenous with those of closed mind and separated from reality (demagogs I believe Jon called them).

Peace

Paul,
Agreed. Even the US Government admits that 90% of the people there are not guilty of anything. Yet we’ve held them there for 7 years in soul crushing conditions. This never should have happened and wouldn’t have happened if Bush/Cheney had not intended to torture. What other reason is there to establish a “constitution-free zone”? This stain must be lifted from our country once and for all, and those who broke the law held accountable. Bring back the rule of law, Mr Obama. Without it, we are nothing.

Gitmo is only one of many land-mines laid by the Bush administration.

Trials are a must, not because of any miss-placed sympathy for any who are terrorists, but because of the larger picture that includes our nation’s reputation when it comes to justice, morality and basic sense of fair play.

If we expect the world to listen to us when we turn toward diplomacy in place of invasion, we would hope they believe what we say.

Any risk those trials may present are small compared to the risk that American is forever left with the reputation Bush created for us.

Merk,

Once again we agree. I would defend freedom of speech every time.

That said, these people are completely unhinged. Those who listen to this poison do not balance their media diet the way that you or I do. I believe that the effect of this is ultimately destructive to discourse. I do defend their right to say whatever they want, but I hold talk radio responsible. The public airwaves are supposed to be used for the benefit of the public interest, and this kind of speech does not benefit the country.

The thing they are all terrified of is that Obama will bring back the dreaded “fairness doctrine”. They are afraid that if forced to (even momentarily) give an opportunity to the other side to speak, their market will get wise and stop listening to their garbage. Limbaugh has his calls carefully screened to eliminate any cogent arguments from the left.

The Fairness Doctrine does not require equal time, as these people claim, just an attempt at balance (i.e. Rush letting all reasonable callers through). Though I do not necessarily completely support this particular legislation, I do recognize that this garbage is the most fetid kind of propaganda. I would not mind seeing big media forced to use our airwaves to present a more balanced picture of events. If more people were aware of the blatant bigoted mean-spirited nastiness in these shows, maybe there would be a public outcry which could help ratchet up the pressure on these corporate pukes.

Jed– You cant say something that will harm people in a physical way; yelling fire in a crowded theater would cause a stampede, and people would get hurt…your example preceding war is more propaganda as opposed to hate speech.

“Hate speech” has very broad definitions, and per Illinois Nazi Party v. Skokie, intent towards violence has to be proven in order to prosecute “hate speech,” in addition its hard to pin down what exactly the term entails…again, it goes back to I believe Rousseau: I disagree profoundly to the core what they are saying, but I will defend their right to the death to say it.

ScrewObama: Please, tell us, rather, enlighten us as to what, in particular, angers you about Obama? Specifics, please…..

I guess, obviously, you’re completely FOR invading sovereign nations unilaterally, stripping your own citizens of some inalienable rights, torture (except to us), politicizing the justice department and supreme court, lying through teeth about every single thing, every single day, subverting the rule of law, subverting congress, subverting the constitution, LESSENING the amount of security and inspection at our ports, etc, etc, etc.

But, obviously those things don’t matter to you. You are a typical lemming of the right that disregards pure, plain, simple facts in the name of ‘We’re America and we can do whatever we want, whenever we want, to whoever we want, for as long as we want.”

BTW: Feel free to leave anytime you want.

It’s amazing. For the last 8 years we’ve (liberal bloggers) have been called anti-american, and unpatriotic for speaking out against the many atrocities of this administration. Now, WITHOUT EVEN TAKING OFFICE YET, the people that were calling us unpatriotic for questioning the president, are doing the same thing………..

SS,

I’m not sure ‘irony’ is appropos for describing THAT particular tirade. Methinks something more sinister perhaps.

Hmmm, for some reason I flashed on the French Rev. When it came ‘full circle’ and sucked up the perps, was that irony or payback?

Law? Why?

Oh, BTW.. I suppose you haven’t considered the irony in you calling anyone a complete moron.

no one is holding a gun to your head. I guess its hard to comment on right-wing sites because so few of them accept any comments huh? we are all aware that the daily show is a joke, Jon Steward will tell you that himself. Sometimes, however, “those things said in jest are truer than the rest”. Fox News has gone to court to protect their right to air untruths. They have no loyalty to the truth, just the Republican party. You my friend, are being taken for a ride.

You people are all complete morons. You cite the daily show as a credible source of news? What a god damn joke. You all sicken me almost as much as our new boy preseident. At least I have enough intellectual honesty to say FOX does cater to the right, and CNN, MSNBC, and esp. the Daily Joke along with The Colbert Report cater to the left.
Just as all of you prayed for our soliders to die in the Iraq war under bush, and got hard ons everytime one or a few did, I hope this country goes down in flames under this president.

Jed Clampett

So, then, I guess it bares analysis to understand why it is that it is unacceptable to yell FIRE in a theater.
While it is quite obvious why a direct call to violence, such as that which is drummed up preceding any war in order to incense the population into acting in ways that are both suicidal and murderous, it is not so evident what it is about ‘yelling fire in a theater’ that is considered out of bounds. Please elucidate.

Peace

Hmmm, I suppose it would have been helpful if I had pointed out that I was refering to the civil rights movement in the 60s.

It’s certainly not ‘new.’ When I see hateful postings I’m sometimes reminded of the picture of the white women in Little Rock screaming curses at the black girls trying to go to school. Trying to go to school.

Ignorance is the biggest enemy facing this country, but it doesn’t seem to be much of a concern in D.C. I suppose if I wanted to ‘control the masses,’ I wouldn’t be too fond of education.

Yup, all speech is protected via the constitution (except for yelling fire in a theatre or direct call to violent action). The only thing we can do is complain. The idea is that if the customer complains, the prod.uct will change. This stuff is so vile that only people who listen to it agree with it. Then there’s FOX News, who’s customer is apparently the Republican party.

Jed Clampett

Interesting story on the media matters site. :/

So is hate speech a protected right in this country? Apparently so, since greed is celebrated, why not?

Sort of reminds me of how the media was used to instigate the Hutus against the Tutsis in Rwanda, we all know how that turned out.

Peace

Jed,
NO! You don’t say ..

Jed Clampett

According to what I just saw on the daily show… Fox news. An Australian magnate that owns ‘newscorp’ and has amassed a vast right wing media empire all over the world which he uses to attempt to influence politics everywhere towards the right wing.

Peace

Ever wonder where these right-wingers come up with their insipid hate speech? Here’s a clue:
mediamatters.org/items/ 200811130002?f=h_top

Yeah then we could be rid of him forever (Olie that is).

I still can’t understand why Bush didn’t ask 0llie North to regroup his platoon and “hunt down” OBL. Who would be better qualified and he would have loved to have been asked.Are you listening, Obamo ?

The bad language and evil thoughts of some comments are unamerican, and neither represent a political stance or a reasoned discourse.
They are meant to be offensive and ugly for its own sake. I would delete them if I could..they certainly do not represent freedom since the individual is a maniac and in a prison of his own, nor speech, since vulgarity is not what freedom protects.

Tinfoil I agree with you about the bailout. Personally I wasn’t a fan of the financial bailout despite the fact that I have money tied up in the market, and I don’t agree that we should bailout the automakers. For years and years American automakers have seen the quality of their product nosedive, yet their perks and pay and have gone up (not too different than the CEOs of financial institutions who drove the company into the ground but jumped out in the nick of time with their golden parachutes). They’ve gotten themselves into this mess and they need to get themselves out. I think this is indicative of a phenomena that’s been sweeping the country where no one is allowed to fail. Some schools won’t let teachers give a child an F or mark up a paper with red pen because it might make the child feel bad. What type of example is that to set? Maybe if the kid feels bad, he’ll study harder next time. And maybe American automakers will focus more on putting out a quality product that can compete with German and Japanese autos.

oh, and i read rolling stone and own stock, and yes, it sucks that under a republican white house the market tanked

wow.. while president bush is still in the white house, did someone seriously say that obama is the stupidest man to be elected president? like seriously?

Yes you are an idiot. Lacking any valid argument you resort to ridiculous ad hominem attacks that have no basis in reality. Please go away and post on rightwingidiotsRus.com or somewhere where your lack of perspective will be appreciated.

You’re an idiot.

Obama is the racist svage that surrounds himself with racist “men of the cloth” and anti-American hotheads, including that whore he calls a wife. Not to mention what his daughters were raised to believe. God knows they are screwed up for life.

Bush and Cheney cherry pick intelligence to justify invading a country and killing thousands of its people, and Obama is the savage? This is the idiotic racist mentality of the average republican voter.

TinMan,

Quite true. I wasn’t thinking so much of the labor unions, but that’s a good point, as I was all the subordinate industries ‘hinged’ to the success of the automakers.

Me, I don’t know why we need SO many different types/styles/models of cars with none of the parts being interchangable. I’d like to think someday commonsense will ‘rule’ but I’ve waited for THAT for a long time already to believe it’s in the offing.

Amd the economy IS Obama’s steed to ride to victory or defeat. Although international events may have an impact. If he can cool the passions of the Middle East, I have to believe the economy will improve correspondingly. All ‘things’ stem from leadership, witness the void we’ve suffered through, and if he begins to lead, good things will follow.

For us. Bad things could follow for him personally, witness some of the posts we’re being subjected to, and TD doesn’t pull.

Dennis,
There is no longer the auto market there once was, and it may never completely recover. Thinning out the number of auto manufacturers can only be a good thing in the long run. I seriously doubt that all the American manufacturers will go bust, though they might look quite different before this is all over. Like I said, this is a “conservative” position. You are right of course that without the Union vote, Obama would not be re-elected. He might not be re-elected anyway depending on what happens with this still deepening recession.

Dime,
You have been drinking the kool-aid bigtime. Of course Obama is not responsible for the meltdown, this line of argument is demonstrably false and you are stupid for bu.ying it. Try learning some FACTS before you engage people, you idiot.

TinMan,

A little tough love? I agree with you in principal, but if Obama turns his back on the auto industry, he’s probably a one-term Prez.

I’d rather he bailed them with some SERIOUS conditions involved. You know, hybreds up, SUVs down. That sort of stuff for starters.

Obama already has done several things that are right in line with that of Hitler. They are practically the same person.

Obama is the most inexperienced stupid person ever to be elected president. The American voter has clearly proven themselves to be unfit for this role. They vote based on hype. Thats why the US has a schmuck in the oval office. I suppose no one who reads rolling stone has any stock so the recent market plummet Hussein is responsible for does not matter to anyone. Say hello to the next great depression.

Jed Clampett

I believe the confusion that plagues the HateMonger (dimebag) is that NAZI was an abreviation of Nationalist Soc.ialist Party. Since in his peanut brain the word soc.ialist is associated with leftists it boggles his mind to imagine them being right wing, conservants.
After watching History International’s presentation of a little history of the soviet union and Lenin today, I’m more than ever convinced that Lenin was a right wing zealot using the label soc.ialist to appeal to the public in order to gain power. It’s quite typical for the rightists hatemongers to use any means necessary to delude the public into supporting them. Once they get power, they act in any way they want since they are able to control the military and thereby everything once they reach the plateau. The labels they heap upon themselves usually mean nothing, one must pay attention to their actions and their words. They are typically totalitarian, their debate skills are minimal, so they resort to verbal abuse, name calling and ridicule to minimize the opponents appeal among the public; most of all, they tend to accuse the opponent of the things they themselves are or do and attempt to disguise themselves as something they are not. For example, the republican party under Bushney labeled themselves patriotic, yet proved themselves to be anything but in the way they ignored the constitution and raided the treasury during a time of war; they call their opponents ‘irresponsible spenders’ while at the same time destroying their nations economy and government by giving billions in tax cuts to the rich while conducting two wars. An interesting phenomenon, but one that repeats itself over and over, one merely needs to pay attention and remember history to recognize the pattern.

Peace

I would like to take a relatively “conservative” position in regards American auto manufacturers.

I can’t support a bailout of these bozos. There is really no such thing as “too big to fail”. This phrase should be translated “they pa.y too much to get politicians elected”).

If we don’t draw the line our “corporate nanny state” might continue dolling out easter eggs to these idiots until doomsday, leaving our government (or the taxpayer, i.e. US) with a HUGE UNPAYABLE DE.BT for which we (the people) bear none of the blame. For those conservatives who would like to “kill the beast” this might be a good thing. Personally, I think it is detestable!

I could have told you 9 years ago that they were going the wrong direction with their SUV-fest. I can see this, but highly pa.id GM executives cannot?? They could have made a 40MPG SUV 5 years ago.

They admitted it at the time. “but Americans want power” they whined “they won’t bu.y a more expensive car”. See where that bottom-line NOW philosophy gets you in business? Meanwhile the Japanese and German manufacturers continued to make progress.

Ironically GM had a great electric car (the EV1) that they le.ased on a limited basis from 1996 - 2001. The customers LOVED them. GM then canceled the program and literally crushed the cars over the frantic protests of their loyal owners. This is the STUPIDITY of American business. Let’em fail, how else will they learn?

Dime, I think you’re searching for the term ‘Marxist’. Please get your right-wing smears right.

Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other loyalties. It emphasizes a myth of national or racial rebirth after a period of decline or destruction. To this end, fascism calls for a “spiritual revolution” against signs of moral decay such as individualism and materialism, and seeks to purge “alien” forces and groups that threaten the organic community. Fascism tends to celebrate masculinity, youth, mystical unity, and the regenerative power of violence. Often, but not always, it promotes racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide. At the same time, fascists may embrace a form of internationalism based on either racial or ideological solidarity across national boundaries. Usually fascism espouses open male supremacy, though sometimes it may also promote female solidarity and new opportunities for women of the privileged nation or race.

Fascism’s approach to politics is both populist–in that it seeks to activate “the people” as a whole against perceived oppressors or enemies–and elitist–in that it treats the people’s will as embodied in a select group, or often one supreme leader, from whom authority proceeds downward.

Kind of like the Republican idea of the unitary executive. You couldn’t be more wrong, dime.

Actually Facism means that the state has overall control over everything, and they place the state over the individual, i.e. big government or leftism. So you and this ass-pimple of a magazine are the facist nazis.
And the Obama daughters are little twats who probably blew their fathers friends so he would be led right up the ladder to the democratic nomination.

Dime: “Boo!”, said your shadow.

Dime -

Are you for real?? If so, F.U. I’m not easily offended, but your posts have gotten under my skin. Leave the little girls alone, a**hole.

BTW,
Nazism (and Fascism in general) is a RIGHT WING phenomenon. Thought you might want to know that.

Oh yeah! We had so much fun as the Bush administration subverted the rule of law, drained our treasury, dragged our international reputation through the mud, and ran the constitution through their office paper shredder. Yeah, it’s been loads of fun. You guys made your nasty bed, now lay down in it. And if you think you are doing your cause any good by slandering the name of a couple of little girls then you are stupider than I thought (and that’s pretty damn stupid).

Yeah maybe if his daughters do some favors for the world leaders, Im sure Obama can put them in his corner. Knowing this guy, his daughters have already gone down that path many times.

Dime,

A little advise.

Do some research. Your blatant ignorance prohibits any meaningful interaction. You haven’t a clue what you are talking about.

Get an attitude adjustment. Obama is our new president, like it or not. If you can’t get with the program, take your bitter misdirected stupid anger and use it to take inventory of your own miserable existence.

Dime, you just don’t get it. P.E. Obama is a uniter, look what outstanding work he has done so far. All future global conflicts with the US will be, as Rahm Emanuel knows well, resolved by “hugging it out”

What makes all you bleeding-hearts even stupider than you look is the fact that you dont understand that radical islam terrorists dont give a damn if we have a colored president who sucks the appendage of their home governments, they still hate all americans. So the attack will come. Obama should be tried and PUNISHED for treason. Him and his entire family.

Jed Clampett

Which would make Nostradamus’ anagram of MABUS all that more eerie for it’s accuracy.
osaMA+BUSh=use of religion to deceive, mislead followers into war, unleash destruction upon the earth, cause the death of thousands of innocents, set back the cause for global peace, increase the destruction of the environment, etc. etc.

Peace

Bin Laden is an interesting subject. Clinton WAS obsessed with him during the last part of his presidency and tried to brief the Bushies during the transition, but was largely ignored (as well as Dick Clarke’s warnings). I tend to agree with Merk that most of Clinton’s foreign policy was a disaster.

Interestingly, the night before 9/11, witnesses put Bin Laden in a Pakistani hospital getting dialysis. The Pakistani ISI blocked off the entire wing and replaced the staff in that section. The CIA almost certainly was aware of where he was at that time.

Then later in 2001 when we had Bin Laden trapped at Tora Bora in a cave complex. At the point where the battle was all but won, witnesses recount that an unmarked helicopter airlifted Bin Laden and his associates out of the complex and whisked him across the border to Pakistan. (Thank you ISI)

Since then, Bin Laden’s taped comments have tended to surface at the most politically convenient times.

These are among the reasons that I tend to believe that Bin Laden is actually a CIA / ISI operative, and is actually under our control. It is also interesting that most of the stories about Tora Bora written at the time have since disappeared from the Internet. But then again, I am a man in a tinfoil hat (a noted conspiracy theorist).

Jed– its called the internet, use it…but the Washington Post did a story on it a few years back

Note* you obviously didnt read my posts, or else you’re just cherry-picking for the items you want to nit-pick on…I said Clinton deserves SOME of the blame, as do every President since our overthrow of Mossadegh in 54…all Presidents, from then through now, have made major blunders in the region…Clinton was a very solid domestic prez who was unfairly smeared for a tryst, however he was weak in foreign affairs. This is not “hate Clinton,” this is called being critical of him, I dont hate the man, beside the fact that I have already DEFENDED Clinton’s actions concerning Bin Laden in a previous post.

Again, your point on Bin Laden? So what? I honestly cant answer as I dont have all the intel on where he is, though if history is a guide, lawlessness in Sudan and lawlessness in Peshawar-Waziristan are two different beasts. Bin Laden is among his kin, which are harder to b.uy off, at this juncture. In Sudan, nobody, outside of a select few, knew or cared who he was, the US included. I’m convinced the man is already dead, and has been something of a Red Herring to trump up support for the right come election time…

You mistakenly equate my criticism of Clinton’s policies as a wholehearted embrace of Bushneys, as if there is no other way, or if you dont support one you must support the other…if you want to debate the actions of our government/corporations abroad, I will be happy to do so…but dont put words in my mouth that I havent uttered, and neither should you infer upon things with which you have no evidence…either you’re getting sloppy or lazy, I’m not sure which…

peace

Jed Clampett

wow, you forgot his irresponsible mishandling of his Starr interrogation or how he permitted the Hindenberg to explode.

Had you just said you hate everything Clinton from the beginning we may have understood just how non-objective your original assessment placing blame for Bin Laden’s actions on Clinton rather than the collective intrusion of the nation in the affairs of other nations as well as our corporation’s illegal actions in the global marketplace actually was.
Since you refuse to give some sort of link to where you saw or heard the story so I can follow it and research it and instead choose to turn the debate into a ‘personal fight’ tells me all I need to know about your lack of logical reasoning and objective observation… not exactly traits of a ‘free thinker’, now are they?

It’s rather funny that you would think that everything happens in a vacuum where only your imagined rules apply. ‘A specious and irrelevant point. Lawlessness has nothing to do with keeping tabs on someone, and/or paying someone off to get someone in hiding,’ Right, that’s probably why we haven’t killed Bin Laden yet, huh? lawlessness, public opinion of those with the guns don’t apply. If anything, I’m glad you’ll never be in charge of foreign policy, if you had been given that responsibility we’d probably be in our second nuclear winter. Unfortunately, there are too many in positions of power who would gladly bring on the nukes and consider themselves winners in the end, just like you.

Peace

Return to the rule oh law? In the USA? Does that mean the Constituton & everything? Wow!
Thought this day would never happen! Like, totally cool.
I think I saw Maevin without a scowl a bit earlier.

Coach– More govt that we didnt need (Homeland Security), and a skyrocketing debt/economic crisis…that is the definable stuff we have to remember the last 8 years.

Jed– Oh so convienient. You can produce any real evidence, but you’re sure I’ve said it. Come on, you’re grasping at straws, and you know it. But lets try to dissect your ranting;

Clinton was obsessed with Bin Laden– The why didnt he take him not once, when the Sudanese offered him, but twice, maybe three, when Egypt and Yemen made noise to his whereabouts? I guess he was only obsessed enought to launch one missile into an empty camp…Clinton simply wasnt that interested in Bin Laden, as Bin Laden wasn’t important to our interests at the time, which in not where my beef with Clinton lays

Sudan/Somalia are lawless– A specious and irrelevant point. Lawlessness has nothing to do with keeping tabs on someone, and/or paying someone off to get someone in hiding, and many warlords would have jumped at the chance to fatten their coffers by offering up Bin Laden…problem is, you have to have a b.uyer, and neither us or the Saudis, it appears were interested. If your logic had any premise, we never would have found Saddam, or any of the top Al-Qaeda leaders in our posession.

Ah, yes, the peace and prosperity of the Clinton foreign policy; tell it to the millions of dead Rwandans, Bosnians, Kosovars, and Somalians who are now dead. And Just because there wasnt a major conflicts, doenst mean that the Clinton years were masterful diplomatic years either. North Korea repeatedly ignoring and violating treaties, the bombing of the aspirin factory, the bombing of the Chinese Embassy, the almost war with Russia over Kosovo, the freeze on talks with Iran while they had a receptive, moderate regime, which then led to the radicals taking over, the collapse of Israeli/Palestinian Peace talks not once, but twice, the failure of the Dayton Accords…perhaps you ought to check history before you snarkily open your mouth on the greatness of Clinton’s foreign policy.

So come on now Jed, I know you can do better, or have you finally just decided to jettison dialogue alltogether and just make stuff up as you go along?

The rich got richer and the poor got poorer (more poor?). That’s what today’s Republicans are all about. I’m sure Bush considers his presidency a great success.

Somebody, anybody, yes, including you Merk, please tell me what our country has to show for the last 8 years of record breaking borrowing, record breaking spending, and record breaking increase of government.

I’m begging someone to come up with SOMETHING that is actually defineable or recognizeable. And, DON’T tell me that we’re ’safer’ in the ‘war’ against terrorism…..It’s unprovable.

Jed Clampett

Well doggies, the Gliebe feels hurt at being exposed.
Had we not had the past experience of trading posts with you for the past two years or more perhaps, I might be able to ignore your past support and acceptance of Bushney policy, since we have that history, I am not inclined to ignore it. So my linking of your support to their policies is a valid one, particularly since you are attempting to deflect Bushney’s responsibility in the events of September 11 onto Clinton. I’m still waiting for a link or actual steering towards some article or book that actually documents your supposed offer. BTW, this is funny ‘the US, the leading anti-terror state’. I guess the Israelis, who had made fighting off terrorists and terrorists ideology their mantra did not exist at the time? Rather closed of mind, don’t you think… ‘free thinker’.

In response to the terrorist threat Clinton created a commission to study and analyze the issue. Mr Richard Clarke, a former Reagan official, was tasked with understanding the enemy and it’s capabilities and was making great progress. While some would have preferred to go off half-co.cked and attack anything perceived to be a threat, Clinton chose to understand what he was dealing with and used experts, regardless of their political affiliation, to inform himself appropriately.
During the election of Bushney, they ridiculed Clinton’s ‘obsession’ with Bin Laden and terrorism and promptly disbanded Clarke’s office when they took control, thereby giving Bin-Laden time to prepare his 9-11 attack unhampered by excessive scrutiny and proposed covert operations. Considering how things have developed since and the connections between Bushney, Bin Ladens and the Soudis, whom have all profited greatly from the September 11 attacks and subsequent wars, I’m not quite convinced that it was a ‘mistake’ of naivete by the new Bushney administration.

Another thing you choose to ignore while trying to place some blame on former Pres Clinton for 9-11. Sudan, then and now, is mostly a lawless land akin to Ethiopia, Yemen and Afghanistan, where warlords rule and armed militias control vast territory. Today, Somalia is a source of pirates that attack shipping on a weekly basis, yet no country seems to be able to prevent them from taking ships full of chemicals, military equipment, personnel and anything else they can use to increase their operating capital. But you think they could go with a few cops, beat on a door and pull the guy out like they do on ‘COPS’ every weekend.
Priceless!!

I guess whether or not Clinton was weak on foreign policy is dependent on your view of what ‘effective foreign policy’ actually is. Since you seem to think war and kidnapping and torture are efficient tools of foreign policy, I can understand why you would think the advances towards the promotion of peace and understanding between nations would be detrimental to your notions of ‘foreign policy’. Personally, I think Clinton’s administration under the leadership of Madelaine Albright was masterful at the art of diplomacy, then again I value peace and prosperity much more than war and economic collapse. Much better than the current ’silver or lead’ method of diplomacy enacted by Bushney.

What is amazing to me is that after all these years, all the expense of carrying out two wars, the evidence that corporations are actually using the war to enrich themselves at the expense of and over the government, coupled with the erosion of our rights and standing in the global community; we still have not made a realistic assessment of what actually drives people to commit these crimes and formulate a strategy to prevent them in the first place, despite being told clearly and unequivocally in UBL’s declaration of war.

As to your last comment, It has already been established on these boards that you’re an ass-breather, these three posts being more evidence of such, so unless you start posting links to your assertions supported by credible sources instead of Faux and their cohorts, you are merely succumbing to the time honored right wing tactic of ‘calling the kettle black’.

BTW-Bush is retiring to Dallas, not Crawford, which makes us here a prime target for that mushroom cloud offered up by Pakistani ISI. I don’t feel safer as a result of Bush’s foreign policy, do you?

Peace

Dennis– Exactly, and Clinton’s blunders were in other areas (Somalia, the Balkans, Rwanda, etc)…his only real failings in the Middle East were mostly out of his control (violence in Palestine, Afghanistan etc)…and no one, in the Western World knew or wanted Bin Laden especially bad…the 90s were the era of authoritarian dictators in the region, which we propped up, not terrorist per se…all of which are totally different in scope and nature from Bushney’s failures, one no worse than the other as Bush’s policies wouldnt have existed without Clintons, which would have happened without Bush I and Reagan and so on…out ME policy has been one blunder after another afte our shining moment during the Suez Canal Crisis…

I think our best hope is that Bush just quietly fades away to Crawford; lets move forward, and see what Obama has in store…I for one am waiting with a mix of excitement and trepidation…

Nicely done Merk. Except maybe the ‘ass’ part, that was a bit rough. I’m pretty sure Prez’ all reflect the mood of the country and at that time I doubt many of us peoples out here were clamoring for Bin Laden’s head, save for a few fanatics.

My sense is/was that Libya and Iran were the targets of American anger and angst, not bands of warriors roaming the mountains of Afghanistan.

So, Bush is going to ‘miss’ being Commander-In-Chief. If that doesn’t say it all I don’t know what does. He can take solace in that he has Sadaam’s pistol, all those pics of the ‘top fifty’ or whatever and his little toy soldiers. He can amuse himself out in the dust of outback TX with those reminders.

Hmmm, maybe it’s time someone came out with Tonka Toys ala Iraqi Insurgents, the better for retired/exiled leaders to play with.

Or maybe we could have an F-111 break the sound barrier over Bush’s house every morning at 7 to wake him up.

What’s that? Oh.

Make that 9 a.m. every morning.

Jed Clampett

Imagine that, a Texan ridiculing the teachings of Jesus. Who could have imagined that the BAPTIST brand of Christianity would actually be opposed to the teachings of the founder of the principles of religion they attest to espouse. It’s sad to realize just how separated from the teachings these folks really are; incapable and unwilling to actually read the teachings objectively, they prefer to believe the fallacies presented to them by organized religion, however flawed it may seem, and defend it with fanatical submission.

Meltdown, the Bin-Ladens and Bushes are BUSINESS PARTNERS, not mere FRIENDS. In the way they view reality, the business relationship is a stronger bond than friendship, so much so that you may not kill someone to defend a friend, but you will kill thousand to protect the business. Keep that in mind as investigations into how we were steered into the quagmire that is Iraq develop.

Peace

Jed- Fallacy? Its a matter of common record between the US, Sudanese, Saudi, and Egyptian governments (and possibly Yemen as well)…his celebrity status was of no consequence…Sudan was, and still is, cash strapped and figured that either the Saudi’s or the US would pay for him, “celebrity status” not withstanding…and again, hindsight is 20/20, Clinton deserves some blame for not taking Bin Laden, but in his defense Bin Laden was not well known, and was not the number one terror threat at the time…again, its a critical view of Clinton (as a weak foreign policy prez) that you may or may not want to hear, but it doesnt make it less true

And Its a bit of stretch to tie me to Bushney’ policies simply because I’m a bit critical of Clinton’s actions, as the two are different subjects…so quit trying to bait me into a fight…either directly answer, its a waste of space to print endless oblique dialogues that offer nothing to the debate other than combative ranting. So if you can dredge up me supporting Bushney’s intelligence, please produce actual words and not stuff pulled out of your @ss

Dime: You DO realize that Osama bin Laden’s immediate family is FRIENDS with the Bush family right? Talk about ties…..

No one will ever attack the USA with the Chosen One running the country, we just hug our enemies rather than anger them now.

Jed Clampett

Interesting, Judith asks for sources, ie. references, and the gliebe, in the priceless way of right wing dogma simply reaffirms and expounds on the fallacy that he himself has already proposed.
Suppose that his assertion is correct and that the Yemenis, or Sudanese offered UBL’s head up to the west on a platter(at a multimillion dollar price of course). Highly doubtful given the man’s celebrity status among the common people. He chooses to ignore all the correlated circumstances of that offer, including the possibility that the offer was a set up by those in the political power structure to actually harm the American position among the middle-eastern peoples. A logic that flies in the face of his previous defense of Bushney’s action in sorting through intelligence information for evidence that would support their incursion into Iraq, however flawed or incomplete that information might be, and the administrations subsequent dissemination of a substandard, flawed, intelligence product among those whose informed decision would shape policy ie, congress. But he’s a stand up guy… right?

Peace

Dime,
You have a strange sense of humor.

Its going to be hilarious when our country is attacked again, maybe this time surpassing the 9-11 death toll. And when they find out who was involved, it lists several men who were tried and freed under Obama’s watch.

Judith– The facts around the case are not clear cut, but it appears that Sudan had Bin Laden under heavy surveillance, and could have extradited him at any time to whomever wanted him, and offered him to both the Saudi and US governments…the whole mess centers around Bin Laden’s role in an attempt to assassinate Hosni Mubarak, and he fled to Sudan after the botched attempt, where his trail was picked up by Sudanese authorities, who offered him to A) Saudi Arabia, his home country, and B) the US, the leading anti-terror state, who would also have other vested interests in him (presumably). Also, it is believed that there was a chance to grab him in both Egypt and/or Yemen in the early-mid 90s…in any case the Clinton camp either said no, or has been conveniently silent on the subject.

As for the topic at hand; either prosecute them in criminal proceedings, or deport them to their countries of origin (those who are not US citizens, and should not be entitled to such protections anyway). More interesting will be to watch Obama’s stance on the secret prison operations we have running in Bulgaria, Egypt, and elsewhere…does he take the hardline? We’ll see how hawkish the dove can get…

When was Clinton offered Bin Laden? This is not true, please give sources.

Jeffrey: There are, also, still those of us who would LOVE to know of the extent of our government’s ‘involvement’ in 9/11…….Still waiting for video feed of the Pentagon getting hit by a commercial airliner…….

Still wondering why Dick Cheney scheduled war games on THAT date, knowing full well he just read intelligence 35 days prior stating al qaeda’s desire to strike on THAT day.

So many questions, going back to Kennedy. So few answers….

i wonder if there’s enough money around for a ‘truth and reconiliation’ crew…kinda like the south africans. there are those of us who’d still like to know who blew away the kennedys and dr. king.

Too bad Bill Clinton didn’t have the same faith when he was offered OBL TWICE by the Yemni government, but was convinced by Sandy “the Stuffer” Berger that is wouldn’t be good politically to arrest OBL!

Faith in the rule of law. How refreshing!