Text 13322, 533 rader
Skriven 2008-03-21 18:12:04 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Kommentar till text 13275 av Jeff Bowman (1:229/500)
Ärende: Bush Vetoes Waterboarding Bill
======================================
20 Mar 08 16:22, Jeff Bowman wrote to Roy Witt:
RW>> The Democrats have no choice but to run Obama now. And he'll lose
RW>> because of his race and very little experience. The racial thing has
RW>> to be addressed for fear of losing the black voters. If they put
RW>> Hillary up for election, she'll lose. Probably as bad as Mondale did
RW>> in 1984, if not worse.
JB> After watching Obama's ~40 minute speech from the other day, my
JB> opinion of him did go back up, after faultering from the whole
JB> Jeremiah Wright debacle.
Apparently no one else agrees with you, as his poll ratings plummeted
after that speech. All that speech did was create more racist hate.
JB> Not only did he apparently write the speech himself, but it shows
JB> again that he's really a good speaker.
I'll agree on the good speaker part.
JB> And he spoke a lot about race, which is something that doesn't come
JB> up a lot from candidates,
Actually, Hillary's campaign has been racist all along.
JB> because everybody's afraid of offending somebody these days.
Can you say Geroldine Ferraro?
JB> I also commend him for using the word "black" a lot to descibe
JB> himself and others. It's a word that a lot of overly-sensitive
JB> America has stopped using in favor of the horribly incorrect term
JB> "African-American".
Although African-American is politically correct and in this case, closer
to reality than black; the appellation, Negro, is the formal term for the
black race. Negro refers to those of African descent as well as the
non-African blacks, which we have plenty of in the US as well.
"Oriental" is the same for the Asian race, and "Caucasion" for the white
race.
When they get back to using Negro, they shouldn't be so embarrassed that
they have to call themselves anything else.
RW>> Yeah, but the do-nothing Democrat led Congress has given them a
RW>> worse popularity rating than Bush. There'll be a big change up this
RW>> time, just the opposite of what happened in mid-term elections.
JB> While the Democratic congress has been disappointing to me in some
JB> respects, when I rate them against the Republican one that was in
JB> there for over a decade before that, the Dems still pull ahead in my
JB> book. Which isn't saying much about either, but still.
Fortunately for the US, the Rep Congress actually did something for the
American public, even if it did faulter in it's last two years as a
majority. The Dems who took over in 2006 have done nothing except complain
about how bad the Reps are.
RW>> Global warming has been proven to be a hoax. AlGore is about to be
RW>> sued by the founder of the weather channel for perpetrating that
RW>> hoax.
JB> Global warming in and of itself is true and happening and proven.
It's a hoax, wool pulled over the eyes of those who don't know any better.
JB> Whether it's man-made is what's debatable. And that hasn't been
JB> proven anything.
The climate goes through these changes all of the time. When the planet's
temp rises 1/2 degree in 100 years, that's nothing.
JB> The weather channel founder lost a lot of credit in my book by
JB> parading around making such statements.
John Coleman is kind of like Ron Paul; he speaks in funny mannerisms, but
he's dead on when he talks about the weather and the hoax of global
warming.
JB> He's not a researcher, he was a meteorologist turned businessman.
JB> His claims are opinions.
That's about as wrong as you can get. Coleman has credentials that are on
par with any of the scientists who claim global warming.
JB> Him saying global warming isn't true is like a die-hard Christian
JB> saying there was no such thing as dinosaurs and that the earth has
JB> only been here a few thousand years, despite evidence to the
JB> contrary.
Since there's nothing in that book to go by, the dhCs have to call it like
they see it. Fortunately, they're not educated enough to realize that the
book they wish was written by God, was actually written by fallible man.
JB> It's easy for one to ignore evidence when they don't want
JB> to believe it.
There's the rub...Coleman knows more about how it is, while many don't.
JB> One has to keep an open mind about any of this stuff until it can be
JB> proven.
None of the so-called proof to date will make it so...
JB> Only if I were a scientist and researched this data with my own hands
JB> and eyes would I be able to sit here and tell you it's this or that.
JB> And since I mentioned religion, I keep the same open mind about it
JB> too, since nobody truly knows, and I find it rather arrogant of an
JB> athiest to pretend he or she does any more than for a priest to
JB> say their version is fact.
I actually feel sorry for both.
RW>> Such as the ice build up this winter was a month ahead of the normal
RW>> schecule and much thicker than ever.
JB> *snip*
RW>> The boys in northern Canada would disagree with you on that. They
RW>> had record low temps this winter, -57 where it's normally around
RW>> -30...
JB> Unusual freezing can be an indication of global warming just the same
JB> as melting,
There's nothing unusual about the Aartic regions freezing...that's what
they've done for millinium.
JB> due to how weather patterns are disrupted by imbalances.
Northern Canada has been having this kind of weather all along, it just
hasn't been this cold for a few years.
JB> And that statement is neither for or against global warming, it's
JB> just a known fact.
But it's not true.
RW>> Sounds like they don't know what they're talking about. Big oil
RW>> would include the people who actually own it to begin with.
RW>> Meanwhile, Bush is saying that we need to get off away from using
RW>> oil...
JB> Bush says it, but we aren't really doing it.
Note that you said 'we'...Bush can't do it all by himself. If we had a
Congress, they'd have done something to promote it already. That hasn't
happened.
JB> Why would an (albeit failed) oil man like himself want to ruin the
JB> industry his family used/uses to become rich in the first place?
At the time of that so-called failure, there were more oil companies than
his going down the tube. His was saved by Spectrum 7 Energy Corp...later
aquired by Harken Energy corp after Spectrum had lost $400,000. Bush was
given Harken stock worth $2m...he received $42,000 to $120,000 per year on
that stock plus a $600,000 in Harken Stock. After he left Harken as a
consultant, he made money on that stock. In June of 1990, GW sold
two-thirds of that Harken stock for $848,560, a cool 200 percent profit.
RW>> JB> Spending in general isn't the problem, it's how they're spending
RW>> it
RW>> JB> inappropriately that hurts.
RW>> Spending is the problem. There are more pork barrel politicians than
RW>> ever.
JB> And yet during Bush's terms with the Republican congress, pork barrel
JB> spending skyrocketed.
It has never exceeded that of any Democrat controlled Congress.
JB> "According to a Congressional Research Service study, the number of
JB> earmarks in spending, or appropriations, bills went from 4,126 in
JB> 1994 to 15,877 in 2005. The value of those earmarks doubled to $47.4
JB> billion in the same period. Earmarked projects often include roads,
JB> bridges and economic development efforts."
JB> Maybe you'd be interested in the source.
Sure.
JB> http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2007Jan03/0,4675,Bush,0
JB> 0.html
Yeah, the first line tells all.
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday he'll submit a proposal to
balance the budget in five years and exhorted Congress to "end the dead of
night process" of quietly tucking expensive pet projects into spending
bills. - January, 3, 2007
JB> Of course, they conveniently don't mention who was in control of
JB> congress all that time. But here's info you don't see Fox News
JB> willing to admit:
You'll also note that the story came from the AP, written by a whacko
lefty by the name of Ben Feller.
JB> "As promised when they took control of Congress, in 2007, House
JB> Democratic leaders cut in half from last year the value of earmarks
JB> in the bill, as they did in the other 11 agency spending measures."
See the beginning paragraph of the article.
JB> That's from the New York Times, which keeps getting accused by
JB> everyone of bias on both sides, so take it as you will. Doesn't mean
JB> you can't go confirm the numbers just the same if you don't believe
JB> it.
If it came from the NY Times, there's no need to check numbers; NYT is
whacko left biased and wouldn't report anything they thought was good
about any conservative.
JB> Anyway, it's things like that which actually earn credit in my book
JB> for the Democrats. Enough earmarks already.
Yeah, those Dems sure do pile them on.
RW>> Had the Republican whiner from Alaska not gotten his way by
RW>> threating to resign (they should have let him), the money slated for
RW>> that bridge would have been re-apportioned to fix a damaged bridge
RW>> in Lousiana that was destroyed by Katrina, and the remainder to the
RW>> Alaska highway projects that are needed.
JB> I wish they had seriously let him resign, because then we would have
JB> never gotten that pathetic attempt at him explaining the internet and
JB> net neutrality. It's scary that men like him are allowed to still
JB> introduce legislation towards things he entirely doesn't understand
JB> whatsoever.
Agreed.
JB> Let's not forget that he's still under investigation for corruption
JB> involving an oil company, getting his home searched and everything by
JB> FBI/IRS. A home which itself may have been bought through such
JB> crooked dealing.
Nothing new there.
RW>> Do you realize that the talk of a recession is global? It's not any
RW>> one person or thing that has brought this about.
JB> Talk of a recession has a funny way of actually causing one, as you
JB> may already be aware. We didn't actually have to do anything major
JB> in America for the rest of the world to get scared and pull out of
JB> investments and such. Which, of course, in turn, hurts the situation
JB> worse. The world wasn't worried about recession during Clinton's
JB> time. It wasn't till Bush starting messing things up that people got
JB> truly concerned.
Fortunately, Bush hasn't messed anything up yet.
RW>> Banks loaned money to people who couldn't afford to pay it back,
RW>> thus we have a glut of home reposessions.
JB> As I've said before I believe, this is all in part due to Americans
JB> thinking they can live too high on the hog and living off of credit
JB> like it's endless. I blame the greedy credit companies for allowing
JB> it to happen in the first place.
It's not so bad here in Texas, but California's real estate market has
taken a dump...I'm glad we got out and sold everything when we did.
JB> I know a fellow who managed to run up thousands of dollars of credit
JB> card bills on just completely trivial crap, and now he's expecting
JB> others to help him pay it off before it eats him alive. Forget that
JB> shit. Consider it a lesson learned.
It's a good thing the Rep controlled Congress changed the bankruptcy
laws...people like him used to be able to file and free themselves of the
problem. Today, they get a 5 year plan to repay it where the creditor
can't move on his assets or take him to court. A sad state of affairs,
even for those who do finally get their money.
BW>> High priced oil products has caused the price of food and
BW>> manufactured goods to rise. This is happening all over the world,
BW>> not just here.
JB> Which is why I believe it had a lot less impact on any recession than
JB> the other aspects. It doesn't help, though, when combined with the
JB> other problems.
It isn't over yet.
RW>> Bush did what he had to do when America was attacked by terrorists.
RW>> If he didn't, we'd be fighting terrorists on our streets, just like
RW>> they're doing in Europe.
JB> Aside from my position that the Bush administration's incompetence
JB> possibly led to 9/11 in the first place,
You should actually look at the Clinton admin for the blame there. His
failure to do anything is what probably led to 9/11...bombing empty
aspirin factories doesn't say much for America's ability to retaliate.
JB> Bush did the right thing going into Afghanistan. Going into Iraq was
JB> obviously a dumb move though.
It was the right move...
JB> Iraq is what screwed us up so bad. I bet we'd have been fine had we
JB> just dealt with Afghanistan alone.
I'll bet we wouldn't...Afghanistan got Al Quaida on the run, but they
aren't just in Afghanistan.
JB> Bush estimated we'd only have 30,000 troops not long after the
JB> invasion, and now that number is almost 6x higher.
It only took that many to defeat Saddam's unwilling army...what came after
was a surprise.
JB> There's really no excuse for such a horribly wrong estimate.
There really is one...bad intelligence.
JB> As for Britain and France having so much trouble with extremists, you
JB> have to remember that they're landlocked.
Ummmm...really? I had the impression that Britain is an island and France
has a very nice beach that faces the Atlantic Ocean.
JB> It's extremely easy to get from one country to another over there
JB> than it is to get into the US.
Both countries actually promoted those immigrants to come there. They were
'invited'...France deserves everything they get. Britain? They're not the
sharpest knife in the drawer either.
RW>> JB> Just because a reporter is liberal or conservative doesn't mean
RW>> JB> they're naturally biased.
RW>> The hell it doesn't. You're liberally biased and your writing shows
RW>> it. Mine is more conservative and I show it. No one can write news
RW>> articles without showing some personal bias'...
JB> I write liberally-biased posts here because we're having discussion.
JB> That doesn't mean I couldn't write a completely fair news story about
JB> somebody who is conservative. Even Bush, of all people.
You'd be one in a Quad-jillion...
JB> But the thing is, people tend to see things they don't like being
JB> made public again, and so they cry bias.
Or they see something that is biased and call attention to it...in your
case that is true.
JB> If I included that Bush's popularity rating is really low, or that
JB> he and his administration took us into Iraq with what turned out to
JB> be false information, or his history with alcohol, or the questioning
JB> of his service in the Air Force, many Republicans would cry fowl.
I wouldn't...everybody is young and needs to get some 'life experience'
under their belt before they become perfect. I didn't do very well at
first either, drinking and carousing, making bad judgement calls and
generally just a fuck up. One day, one gets enough life experience to turn
themselves around and become successful. GW is no different than anybody
else.
Now if you take a look at Ted Kennedy's past, you'd have a lifetime of
failure. Bush never ran his car off the road into Chappaquiddick Bay and
left the occupant(s) there to drown while he staggered home, hoping the
cops didn't discover that he was as drunk as a skunk when he drove that
car into the water. Unfortunately, he hasn't learned much by virtue of
his life experiences. And that seems to run in the Kennedy family. John
and Bobby were no angels in their day. Fortunately somebody did something
about that.
JB> That doesn't change the fact that these are all true statements or
JB> things that did happen, but they don't want to hear it.
That dead drum isn't sounding very good...
JB> If I left those things out to satisfy Republicans, Democrats would
JB> shout bias for leaving out important facts about the man's life and
JB> career. It's easy for someone to read bias into something if it
JB> doesn't suit them.
There's nothing important about them, unless you're living in the past.
JB> Regardless, I continue to say that being liberal or conservative
JB> doesn't mean you _have_ to write biased articles. But most people do
JB> include bias to satisfy their majority readers.
Too bad you can't see the light for the forest.
JB> Or worse, their editors. Fox News viewers/readers wouldn't be
JB> satisfied if there was heavy coverage of every Republican scandal,
JB> for example, but they are if there's coverage of what's being done
JB> right.
Don't know why you would think they don't cover the good and the
bad...they cover it anyway.
RW>> JB> You can hate someone's guts, but that doesn't mean you can't
RW>> write
RW>> JB> a fair story about'em.
RW>> LOL! Tell that to Helen Thomas. At the July 18, 2006 White House
RW>> press briefing, Thomas remarked, "The United States is not that
RW>> helpless. It could have stopped the bombardment of Lebanon. We have
RW>> that much control with the Israelis... we have gone for collective
RW>> punishment against all of Lebanon and Palestine." Press Secretary
RW>> Tony Snow responded, "Thank you for the Hezbollah view."
JB> Had she left out the last statement, she would have been okay
JB> regarding the appearance of being non-bias.
But that's here history...she's never said a kind word about any
conservative Prez...the fact is, we don't have any control over what the
Israelies do...aside from 'encouraging' them to not be as hostile as their
enemies.
JB> Regarding her statement, personally I agree, we could have stopped
JB> them had we wanted.
Bullshit. We had no more idea of what they were up to as we did with the
World Trade Center bombing and 9/11...
JB> I'm not saying I wanted us to, though. We interfere in their
JB> garbage too often. Let them duke it out amongst themselves for a
JB> change.
Nahhhh. I'd rather see the entire fucking region nuked out of existance.
That was the liberal side of me talking.
JB> Anyway, you're citing one example. Just because we don't tend to see
JB> honest reporting these days doesn't mean it's not possible.
It is if you watch Fox News...and I don't mean the TV Talkshows, I mean
the news as it's reported. Unbiased.
RW>> I'm not talking Republican reporters. Remember that only 8% of the
RW>> media is conservative. You don't have to be Republican to be
RW>> conservative. My father was as conservative as you could get, yet he
RW>> was a staunch Democrat. He never voted outside of the party in his
RW>> entire life. Much to my and my siblings dismay.
JB> Considering many conservatives are religious,
Yeah, the Christian Right, eh...it really doesn't exist. That's a
fabrication of the liberal press.
JB> and many religious consider liberals horrible people for supporting
JB> gays and all that,
As well they should. It's not nice to fool with mother nature.
JB> I find it hard to believe that an average conservative reporter isn't
JB> going to be biased against liberals.
But it's ok if the liberals are biased against conservatives.
JB> As I said though, there's no reason they couldn't be fair if they
JB> chose to be. Just like a liberal reporter could. But you can't ever
JB> make me believe that all conservative reporters are honest, no more
JB> than I'd believe all liberal ones are. And don't think I haven't
JB> frowned at seeing blatant liberal bias in stories before.
Let me know when you see a conservative reporter reporting anything biased
about a homosexual, that aren't actual facts of the story. Of course, we
don't have to look very far to find a liberal reporter who embelishes on
their stories. They can be found on every alphabet news channel and in
nearly every newspaper and website.
RW>> JB> So just because a website or channel you don't like covered
RW>> JB> something, that automatically makes it bogus?
RW>> If it's biased in a certain way. You say that just because a person
RW>> leans one way or the other, they cannot write an unbiased report.
RW>> I'm here to tell you that isn't so.
JB> If you go to a heavily-leaning place, then of course it's not. But
JB> if you go to a place like Youtube, which allows content from anyone
JB> (and trust me, I've seen plenty from both), then there shouldn't be a
JB> problem.
I have a problem with youtube because the people who upload that kind of
content, have an agenda...I'm not interested in their agenda.
JB> You simply don't have to look at the parts you don't like.
JB> Bias is not an issue.
Bias is the issue.
RW>> JB> Liberal sites cover lots of things, that doesn't mean it's not
RW>> JB> covered elsewhere too.
RW>> Yet, those same things are covered in a different bias...
JB> Regardless of bias, that doesn't mean you can't extract facts.
If can't get factual reporting, how can you distinguish between the facts
and opinion? That's like looking at alphabet soup and trying to read the
message.
JB> Or at least learn of the story, and then research it yourself at
JB> various other places. I've done that many times.
One shouldn't have to do that...one should be able to trust what they're
hearing.
RW>> But it's still on a liberal website. That says a lot about it in
RW>> itself.
JB> So even if O'Reilly said America was the worst country in the world,
JB> and that he wished we were all dead, as long as the clip of him
JB> saying that showed up on Youtube, you'd still refuse to believe it?
Yeup...I know he wouldn't say that and anything on youtube would be put
there by someone with an agenda. In this case, they're tryingn to make
O'Reilly out to be something he isn't.
JB> I keep trying to understand why exactly you consider any content that
JB> touches a website you consider liberal somehow makes it tainted and
JB> untrue. Even if it's still the original, unmodified content. And yet
JB> if a clip of Olbermann saying the same thing aired on O'Reilly, you'd
JB> believe it without question.
Because I trust that O'Reilly isn't telling tall tales like Olbermann
does.
R\%/itt
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
* Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)
|