Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
[BLOG] Fear and Loathing
I Read This
August 15, 2018, 18:58:27 EDT *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you have any issues at all, visit our support site.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
  Print  
Author Topic: [BLOG] Fear and Loathing  (Read 16763 times)
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #45 on: October 24, 2008, 13:39:36 EDT »

Clinton lied directly to the american people on camera, and expected them to let him get away with it. 

Actually he did not, it was found he had not lined in the impeachment presded, he was Censored, but otherwise found NOT GUILTY"

the Republicians got to Define what "Sex" was in the context of the hearing, their definition did not include a blow job.
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
boring7
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


« Reply #46 on: October 24, 2008, 13:43:22 EDT »

Clinton lied directly to the american people on camera, and expected them to let him get away with it.  If he had said that he had a gluten allergy while eating white bread, the lie would still have been a lie--and he still would deserve to lose trust.

On the other hand, nobody has ever proved that Bush lied.  In fact, the person many people say was responsible for the "lie us into war" just endorsed Obama.  Food for thought.
Let me flip that around with an opposite subjective double-standard:  

Quote from: a mirror image
Bush lied directly to the American people on camera, and expected them to let him get away with it.  He told numerous lies about "the terrorists" and Al-qaeda being with Saddam Hussein.  

On the other hand, Bill Clinton didn't actually lie because according to dusty old law tomes "eatin' ain't cheatin' " as the kids say and fellatio is not legally defined as sex.  
Objectively speaking, Clinton lied about a blowjob and was brought up on charges, Bush lied about a whole lot of things that would kill people and got...a bad approval rating.  The scale was different, the punishment was different, and the two seem to have been reversed.  Were the news media inclined towards professionalism and/or truth this would all be well-known and obvious.  Instead they let "experts" who specialize in partisan hackery do the analysis and talk to anyone who will get their ratings up (usually a crazy person) and constantly bounce from distraction to distraction like a child with ADD.  

Butterfly!  *chases after butterfly*
Logged
Laserlips
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #47 on: October 24, 2008, 18:11:45 EDT »

Ooh, pretty butterfly...

Are you honestly trying to tell me that with a Democratic majority and an approval rating of the President which approached the single digits (although never as low as Congress), that the reason Bush has never been impeached is because of the Republicans?

What are Pelosi and Reid afraid of?  Why, when whoever-it-is brings up his biannual "Impeach Bush" bill, is it defeated by a Democratic congress?  What possible motivation does the legislature have to protect Bush, when they and their leaders vehemently despise him?

Could it possibly be that the evidence does NOT support their accusations?  Could it be that they are all talk and no substance?  Could it be that "Bush lied, people died" is a nice effective ad campaign and nothing more?

If Congressional Democrats had ANY evidence, Bush would have gone through the same thing Clinton did.  Moreover, if they had any real and compelling evidence, I would be happy to see him kicked out of office--or strung up by his neck for treason.

There is no such evidence, and I've never been convinced that he and his "cronies" could possibly have destroyed it all.  The best evidence is when one member of his cabinet made a lot of money by writing a book about how Bush was just as bad as everyone said, but who still gave no evidence--and all of his colleagues flatly denied his witness.  That's the BEST evidence.  That's why Bush is still in office--because the rule of law is still more important, even to our immensely corrupt legislature, than blind hatred.

Clinton's impeachment should never have BEEN about Lewinsky.  It should have been about unfaithfulness.  He was unfaithful to his wife and dishonest to the American people.  I'm glad he wasn't impeached because he can't have been a worse president in his last few years than Gore would have been.  But he has no respect or trust from me, and I'm funny in that I expect the person who represents me to the world to be trustworthy and respectable.  Clinton helped precipitate our current economic crisis, and he sent our troops to war WITHOUT congressional approval, and he lied to us and expected us not to forgive him but to pretend he hadn't done anything wrong because hey, it was just a blowjob!
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62

Mormons for Romney kind of sounds like it might be a palindrome, but it isn't.
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #48 on: October 24, 2008, 20:41:52 EDT »

Ooh, pretty butterfly...

Are you honestly trying to tell me that with a Democratic majority and an approval rating of the President which approached the single digits (although never as low as Congress), that the reason Bush has never been impeached is because of the Republicans?

What are Pelosi and Reid afraid of?  Why, when whoever-it-is brings up his biannual "Impeach Bush" bill, is it defeated by a Democratic congress?  What possible motivation does the legislature have to protect Bush, when they and their leaders vehemently despise him?
Remember, the media is incredibly warped to the conservative's favor.  We'd be depicted as mean petty elitists who want to kill anyone we don't like.  Double standards are awesome.

Could it possibly be that the evidence does NOT support their accusations?  Could it be that they are all talk and no substance?  Could it be that "Bush lied, people died" is a nice effective ad campaign and nothing more?

If Congressional Democrats had ANY evidence, Bush would have gone through the same thing Clinton did.  Moreover, if they had any real and compelling evidence, I would be happy to see him kicked out of office--or strung up by his neck for treason.

There is no such evidence, and I've never been convinced that he and his "cronies" could possibly have destroyed it all.  The best evidence is when one member of his cabinet made a lot of money by writing a book about how Bush was just as bad as everyone said, but who still gave no evidence--and all of his colleagues flatly denied his witness.  That's the BEST evidence.  That's why Bush is still in office--because the rule of law is still more important, even to our immensely corrupt legislature, than blind hatred.
Ya right.  Reagan openly admitted to committing treason on tv, and he wasn't even tried, cause he said he was sorry.  Oliver North was tried, but he just put on a military suit at the trial and played up the patriotism till the trial made the OJ Simpson trial look fair and balanced by comparison.  In my opinion, they both should have been tried, convicted, and executed.  Specifically bypassing congressional authority to sell weapons to an enemy nation in order to finance terrorists, and you are a dead man in my books.

As for evidence, there is more than enough evidence from reliable sources that any court would consider sufficient to indicate that Bush gave deceptive and misleading information.  Bush may not have lied, but only because he believes the falsehoods he blares out to the world, and that is little better if not much worse.

Clinton's impeachment should never have BEEN about Lewinsky.  It should have been about unfaithfulness.  He was unfaithful to his wife and dishonest to the American people.  I'm glad he wasn't impeached because he can't have been a worse president in his last few years than Gore would have been.  But he has no respect or trust from me, and I'm funny in that I expect the person who represents me to the world to be trustworthy and respectable.  Clinton helped precipitate our current economic crisis, and he sent our troops to war WITHOUT congressional approval, and he lied to us and expected us not to forgive him but to pretend he hadn't done anything wrong because hey, it was just a blowjob!
Gore has been far more trustworthy and respectable than Bush ever was.  Remember when Bush denied saying stay the course even after he made it a catchphrase?
« Last Edit: October 24, 2008, 20:43:49 EDT by wodan46 » Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #49 on: October 24, 2008, 21:51:54 EDT »

What are Pelosi and Reid afraid of?

Cheney. Can't get both of them at the same time, and Cheney is worse than Bush.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #50 on: October 24, 2008, 22:01:24 EDT »

Cheney is probably the most dangerous man in America right now, and has been since Bush cracked during 9/11

He's also very, very bright, much more so then Pelosi (who seems to be intellectually far out of her league).  Reid is a partisan to the nth degree, but seems to have an intellectual handle on many issues, but congresspeople are often cut from a different cloth.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #51 on: October 24, 2008, 23:42:06 EDT »

McCain volunteer charged in attack hoax

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27350530/111
Quote
PITTSBURGH - A young campaign volunteer for John McCain made up a story of being robbed, pinned to the ground and having the letter "B" scratched on her face in what she had said was a politically inspired attack by a black man, police said Friday.

Race has been a sensitive issue in the presidential campaign, as Democrat Barack Obama would be the first black U.S. president if he wins the Nov. 4 election.

Ashley Todd, 20-year-old college student from Texas, admitted Friday that the story was false, including the claim that the "B" stood for "Barack," said Maurita Bryant, the assistant chief of the police department's investigations division.

Todd was charged with making a false report to police, and Bryant said police doubted her story from the start.

Dressed in an orange hooded sweat shirt, Todd left police headquarters in handcuffs late Friday and did not respond to questions from reporters. The mark on her face was faded and her left eye was slightly blackened when she arrived in district court.

Todd was awaiting arraignment Friday on the misdemeanor false-report charge, which is punishable by up to two years in prison.

Mental health issues'
She will be housed in a mental health unit at the county jail for her safety and because of "her not insignificant mental health issues," prosecutor Mark Tranquilli said.

Todd initially told investigators she was attempting to use a bank branch ATM on Wednesday night when a 6-foot-4 black man approached her from behind, put a knife blade to her throat and demanded money. She told police she handed the assailant $60 and walked away.

Todd, who is white, told investigators she suspected the man then noticed a John McCain sticker on her car. She said the man punched her in the back of the head, knocked her to the ground and scratched a backward letter "B" into her face with a dull knife.

Police said Todd claimed the man told her that he was going to "teach her a lesson" for supporting the Republican presidential candidate, and that she was going to become an Obama supporter.

Todd told police she didn't seek medical attention, but instead went to a friend's apartment nearby and called police about 45 minutes later.

Todd could provide no explanation for why she invented the story, police said. The woman told investigators she believes she cut the "B" onto her own cheek, but did not provide an explanation of how or why and said she doesn't remember doing so, police said.

Police said that the woman reported suffering from "mental problems" in the past and that they do not believe anyone put her up to the act.

Tranquilli said Todd will remain jailed over the weekend pending a psychiatric evaluation, which won't happen until Monday at the earliest.

The Associated Press could not immediately locate Todd's family.

Bryant said somebody charged with making a false report would typically be cited and sent a summons. But because police have concerns about Todd's mental health, they are consulting with the Allegheny County District Attorney.

College Republican worker
Todd worked in New York for the College Republican National Committee before moving two weeks ago to Pennsylvania, where her duties included recruiting college students, the committee's executive director, Ethan Eilon, has said.

"We are as upset as anyone to learn of her deceit, Ashley must take full responsibility for her actions," College Republican National Committee spokeswoman Ashley Barbera said in a statement.

Police reported Todd's claims Thursday, as a photo of her injuries made it onto numerous blogs and news sites. By Friday, police said they had found inconsistencies in Todd's story. They gave her a lie-detector test, but wouldn't release the polygraph results.

Police interviewed Todd after she contacted police Wednesday night and again on Thursday, Bryant said. They asked her to come back Friday, ostensibly to help police put together a sketch of the man. Instead, detectives began interviewing her.

"They just started talking to her and she just opened up and said she wanted to tell the truth," Bryant said.

Police suspected all along that Todd might not be telling the truth, starting with the fact that the "B" was backward, Bryant said.

"We have robbers here in Pittsburgh, but they don't generally mutilate someone's face like that," Bryant said. "They just take the money and run."
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
Bocaj Claw
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 349


WWW
« Reply #52 on: October 25, 2008, 03:29:59 EDT »

This incident isn't funny. Watching blogs u-turning from "that goddamn black man" to "that lying whore" is at least interesting.
Logged

Laserlips
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #53 on: October 28, 2008, 09:30:19 EDT »

I guess I just don't see a right-wing bias in the mainstream media.  Talk radio, sure, and there's plenty of right-wing commentary shows on networks like Fox and even CNN, but as far as I can see the people who claim to be giving "the news" are in the pocket of the Left.

I'm not sure there's an objective way to measure this.
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62

Mormons for Romney kind of sounds like it might be a palindrome, but it isn't.
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #54 on: October 28, 2008, 10:41:47 EDT »

There is.  It has been done.  It supports our conclusions, not yours.  Specifically, it involves doing things like checking the number of positive and negative news stories put out by given news channels, with positivity measured by unbiased individuals grabbed by Pew and the like.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Bocaj Claw
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 349


WWW
« Reply #55 on: October 28, 2008, 10:57:18 EDT »

I recall that when the study found that the media did have a bias towards the left in 2006, O'Reilly praised the guy doing the study. When he later performed the same study again and found that the media had a bias toward the right in 2008, O'Reilly called the man an idiot. Good times.
Logged

Laserlips
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #56 on: October 28, 2008, 22:32:27 EDT »

I would truly appreciate a link to that study, without any sarcasm involved.  I'd really like to read it.  And by the way, everyone else here seems to know a lot more about what O'Reilly has said than I do.  I've never watched the show.
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.62

Mormons for Romney kind of sounds like it might be a palindrome, but it isn't.
Bocaj Claw
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 349


WWW
« Reply #57 on: October 28, 2008, 22:50:31 EDT »

Sarcasm is basically all I can do.

The study I am talking about was done by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a non-partisan group that studies the news and entertainment media.

The 2006 study: http://www.cmpa.com/files/media_monitor/06sepoct.pdf
The July 2008 study: http://www.cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/election%20news%207_29_08.htm
The October 2008 study: http://cmpa.com/Studies/Election08/election%20news%2010_14_08.htm - reverse of July one.

Article talking about O'Reilly's reaction: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/30/oreilly-lichter-study/
Logged

boring7
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 292


« Reply #58 on: October 29, 2008, 01:39:19 EDT »

This incident isn't funny. Watching blogs u-turning from "that goddamn black man" to "that lying whore" is at least interesting.
I find it hilarious, but I have been told I am a monstrous sociopath with the moral compass of a rabid animal. 

Interesting to note, along with the "I don't know how this happened, I made it all up" she apparently worked for the Ron Paul Campaign and was fired.  Too crazy for the Paulestinians?  Yikes. 
</cheapshot>
But apparently a few weeks later she called them up and told a similar story about being robbed/vandalized because of her ties to the Ron Paul Revolution. 

Are you honestly trying to tell me that with a Democratic majority and an approval rating of the President which approached the single digits (although never as low as Congress), that the reason Bush has never been impeached is because of the Republicans?

What are Pelosi and Reid afraid of?  Why, when whoever-it-is brings up his biannual "Impeach Bush" bill, is it defeated by a Democratic congress?  What possible motivation does the legislature have to protect Bush, when they and their leaders vehemently despise him?
A fair question, the democrats are a rather cowardly crop, playing too cautiously, and I suspect it will cost them.  The alternative theory is that they are "giving the Republicans enough rope to hang themselves with," but I think that hanging has already taken place.  Still the reason that the democratic congress won't IMPEACH is much simpler and has nothing to do with Cheney. 

They would lose. 

Clinton was found innocent, but after dragging the country through the CIRCUS of the impeachment not only was the nation very tired and stressed out, they were sick of the bastards playing these games.  Unsurprisingly "Newtie and the blowhards" who got the most screen time trying to deal the final blow (hurrrrrr) to Clinton were the ones who got booted from office.  The democrats, aside from some TINY sense of concern for the nation and avoiding such an asinine embarrassment, don't feel like repeating Mr. Gingrich's mistakes. 

Could it possibly be that the evidence does NOT support their accusations?  Could it be that they are all talk and no substance?  Could it be that "Bush lied, people died" is a nice effective ad campaign and nothing more?

If Congressional Democrats had ANY evidence, Bush would have gone through the same thing Clinton did.  Moreover, if they had any real and compelling evidence, I would be happy to see him kicked out of office--or strung up by his neck for treason.
Sort of.  See you're making the obvious mistake most folk make of confusing law and justice.  You know and I know that Bush told a bunch of obscene lies about secret nukes and hidden ties to terrorists.  They KNEW that there were no weapons and that Saddam hated volatile fundies, but he said "we have intelligence" (bad intelligence) and "we have to act before bad things happen."  It is well-known (and actually proven, your commentary about "evidence" aside) that the intel was "massaged" and "cherry-picked."  And plenty of lies were of quality, Saddam and Al-qaeda had links, they asked him to ally with them and he told them to bugger off.  That's the secret "link" that Cheney continues to claim exists but refuses to explain.  It's impossible to prove what went on in Dubya's head, and that he was criminally lying instead of criminally stupid.  And even if it could be proven that he knew what he was shoveling came from a bull's back end, you'd have to prove that was treason or a crime since I don't think anyone previous thought it was something that needed to be codified into law. 

But this is getting tangetial.  The point was, originally that the right simplifies things until they are completely wrong, and the media let's them declare it "balanced" when "Obama is a secret muslim terrorist socialist plotter" is set opposite to "McCain is so old he doesn't know what's going on with his campaign." 

To be balanced, you would have to match "Barack, Hussein Obama, did he go to a radical Islam school and learn to be a deep cover agent planning to destroy America?" with "John McCain, is he just an angry jerk with daddy issues" or perhaps, "Is he secretly a Manchurian candidate serving his Vietcong masters?"  Feel free to guess which one the media DIDN'T play. 

Now I find it fairly easy to divorce myself from bias towards the media (I just have trouble WATCHING it, it being so mind-numbing) but to do that I find it most important to know how the bias works. 

First, the media isn't right-wing, it's conservative.  What is the difference you ask?  Conservative means opposition to change in the status quo, right-wing means changing things towards the (unrealistic) status of the 1950s, "only better."  That means the media does not seek to promote Right-wing agendas, it seeks to keep things where it can handle them, with manufactured crises that don't matter, constant appeals to conventional wisdom, and a desire to avoid the dreaded "Liberal bias" by giving even the most dishonest right-wing claptrap equal time. 

Second, bias is not in attacking or punishing but in forgiving.  Two people say, "Detroit's a mess 'cuz o' them darkies," one of them is a young qhite guy with a shaved head and a confederate-flag-emblazoned white tank top and the other is Grandma, can you HONESTLY say you would say/think the same things about both? 

Third, bias NOT in who gets more negative press, but what that press is about. 

Fourth, ask yourself if you would feel the same way were the situations reversed. 

Obama was hit harder than Hillary or McCain in the primaries, but when he kept WINNING the media became obsessed with the guy.  When he went "on tour" to give McCain what he kept harping on (i.e. go to other countries and prove you can talk to them) the media practically ignored the McCain campaign.  Was this bias against McCain, or bias against Obama?  Studies of the time showed that while they talked about him a lot more, it was a lot more negative than McCain coverage

Why was it more negative?  Because he was "popular" not because of what he said. 

Now McCain is getting FAR more negative stories about him, is it because he's "unpopular"?  No, it is because of what he, and perhaps more importantly what SHE has said.  Joe Biden and Sarah Palin were both put in "gotcha" interviews where they were asked respectively, "Is Obama going to be a socialist?" and "Are people who bomb abortion clinics terrorists?"  Biden gave vague-but-honest platitudes about progressive taxation.  Palin said, "well, Ayers, ayers, ayers, I'm not sure you could call abortion-bombers terrorists." 

Flip that around, it would be as if Biden had said, "yes, we're socialist," and Palin had said, "well they're a different kind of terrorist, crazy and unstable instead of cognizant and dangerous."  Also, the Biden interview was a lot more hostile, it would have been like asking Palin, "you are a member of an evangelical group, as are abortion bombers, does that mean you are grouped with terrorists?" 

I probably had more, but I'm very sleepy now. 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!