You keep bringing up “the O’Reilly Factor”, which leads me to believe that you are completely unfamilar with the rest of the Fox lineup. My suggestion to you would be to watch Fox&Friends, America’s Newsroom, Special Report, Happening Now, The Live Desk, and Studio B. The “O’Reilly Factor” is a commentary show where Bill O’Reilly along with his guests provide their take on the news, just like “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” on MSNBC.

in this time when all you hear from t.v. radio,and see in the newspapers is liberal pablum,fox news at least comes close to reporting the truth,that liberal fascists like you want to destroy them to is sickening,you should go back to whatever socailist country you came from and stay there.

There can be both opinion ahows and news on the same network. Can you spot the difference? Why don’t you discuss Olbermann instead? Does he do ‘‘good, unbiased journalism’‘?

If you are so concerned with facts, why do you preface your letter with unscientific, online polls?

Fox news does have a bias, and their bias is the same as mine. They perfer traditional conservatism to liberal chaos. Sure they slant their views in this direction, but they also have facts to back a significant percent of their information. The fact that the White House has come out against Fox News is the best possible compliment they could get in my opinion. Shame on all the other Broadcast News Centers, CNN, NBC, ABC, etc for not coming to their defense on this topic. Can you imagine if Bush had come out and said that a liberal news station that broadcast negative information and disagreement with his policies should be “hushed”?

OMG has any one taken a look at MCNBC? Folks it’s all about ratings. So guess what, its entertainment. What do you want a disclaimer like this one from Neil Boortz;
Don’t believe anything you read on this web page, or, for that matter, anything you hear on The Neal Boortz Show, unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true, or unless you have taken the time to research the matter to prove its accuracy to your satisfaction. This is known as “doing your homework.”
Folks take responsibility for your own thoughts and opinions and do not rely on TV entertainers.

For all of you narrow minded imbeciles. Watch CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the news organizations. Fox New has the same stories. The Washingto feud reminds me when some one is being
questioned to see if he is telling the truth or has something to hide, if he doesn’t have a problem he will answer questions but if he does, he will get defensive, and would yell for his lawyer.

@slowhike

Get real, slowhike. Why should the other news agencies come to Fox’s defense? Fox spends 90 percent of its airtime bashing the ‘liberal’ media. When pigs fly …

Get real yourself docsavage. It headlines today. All the other news agencys did come to Fox’s defense and refused to interview the treasury “czar” unless Fox was included. Read it and weep.
And as for the Fox bashing from Chris Cuellar…..too bad!
Sorry you don’t like the fact that Fox news is watched and appreciated by 25% of the students at UNM, but that doesn’t surprise me. The facts show that Fox news is the preferred outlet for news and opinion by MOST of america. The rating show that Fox leads all other networls in viewers, and ratings, and market share. Why do you think that is?
It’s because Fox is balanced. Fox gives you the news straight. Fox has the best anchors, and Fox puts the smartes people in front of your screen. Not some dough head, fake tanned Ken-Doll, or Barbie.
Facts are facts, and the facts prove out that more Americans watch Fox news and get their news from Fox than any other channel, cable or not.
Most CEO’s of majow American companies get their news from Fox news. Most business managers get their news from Fox news. Most successful leaders in our country get their news from Fox news. …………..
unfortunately most air head, left leaning, living off their mommy and daddy’s, uemployed college students don’t. And most of them complain that Fox is nothing more than a branch of the “cast right wing conspiracy!”
Good luck with that….

And Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann are not unbiased? Please, get your head out of your arse.

Funny how the same people who screamed and ranted about the (utterly fictional) ‘liberal media’ bias during the Bush nightmare have no problem with the totally biased right wing propaganda being spewed upon the current administration.

God, hypocrites suck!

There is so little actual news presented to Americans on any of the major networks anymore it’s no wonder we are the most clueless nation on earth. Ignorance rally IS bliss, I guess. Sometimes I wish I was dumb enough to believe everything I see on TV, especially on one specific network…

Can you imagine the outcry there would have been if any news organization had tried to portray Bush as unpatriotic (or worse) while he was commander in chief? Not that I expect hypocrites to consider this fact, mind you.

Frankly, I have never watched FOX “news”, but clearly the fact that Americans are so ill-informed about the world in general can be blamed on the complete lack of substantive coverage of truly important issues from any of the so-called ‘respectable’ news organizations.

Journalism is long since dead in this country with the exception of a few alternate on-line media outlets. The fact is that the US has much less freedom of the press than many of the countries FOX derides.

Here is a link to a story from that bastion of liberal bias, THE WASHINGTON POST, from 2006: “U.S. Rank on Press Freedom Slides Lower”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR2006102301148.html

We were ranked 53rd out of 168 countries on press freedom. Deal with it. If you want real freedom of the press, move to Scandinavia.

But as some of the posters on this site point out, Americans clearly don’t want actual news. We want fear-mongering, immigrant bashing, minority scape-goating, celebrity worship, police chases, lots and lots of sports, and plenty of heart-warming stories about our service men and women spreading peace and justice throughout the world.

Sigh.

In other words, childish fantasies.

You all are free to watch whatever “news” you prefer – but please don’t pretend you are more informed than anyone else. Because you’re not.

It’s okay – I know you THINK you are more informed than your fellow citizens. It’s a pathological condition. Look it up.

Every journalistic corporation’s goal is to survive it’s competitors. They can do this by conforming to a popular opinion on a given subject, ensuring it’s demographic’s dependence, or they can essentially throw a “stick in the spokes” to draw attention to themselves. However, I believe they (or anyone else) wouldn’t do the latter if it cost them their jobs, so they stay close to the facts. EVERY broadcasting station has an opinion on their stories, whether they explicitly state it (like Fox) or not. But Fox is not alone in it’s bais’.I try to watch a variety of the networks to form my own opinion from “both sides.”
The one thing I will always change the channel for is when the journalists bash other journalists from other networks.This is because I don’t care about what they think of each other, I just want the news.

JD hit it right on the head. Pretty sure that’s why i watch Stephen Colbert and John Stewart. If every self-proclaimed “news” station is nothing but a joke, you might as well get a laugh out of this so called “journalism.” Its just entertainment now…

I think it’s funny that some bonehead is upset enough about fox news to write about it and the daily lobo actually printed the crap. Too funny. Get a life and stop with the young turks thing, it made you stupid.

It is impossible to remain 100% neutral in News coverage. The whole fiasco about fox news displays the intolerable attitudes of the left and their messiah Barack Obama. Whatever happened to “dissent is patriotic”. Now its, “dissent is racist”. What a pathetic president to attempt to silence and marginalize those that disagree with him. Just wait for the next step, total control, tyranny and totalitarianism. All the Obama sheep will blindly follow.

Ethics and credibility in journalism died with Walter Cronkite. And I stopped watching the “news” long before that. I make my own decisions. I don’t let others make it for me.

Faint though it is, the heartbeat of media integrity still flutters weakly, perhaps realizing this is necessary to save itself.

Barack Obama, (D) the first African-American president in the history of the US, added a dubious first to his presidency—for the first time in the history of the US the president banned an entire network from the White House press pool. Which network? Why the one the administration is futilely trying to delegitimize but is only helping—Fox, of course.

Doug Ross explains the significance of the White House’s shameful—and increasingly desperate—act.

“Today the White House stepped up its attack on Fox News, announcing that the network would no longer be able to conduct interviews with officials as a member of the Press Pool. The Pool is a five-member group consisting of ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC organized by the White House Correspondents Association. Its membership is not subject to oversight by the government.Before an interview with “Pay Czar” Kenneth Feinberg, the administration announced that Fox News would be banned from the press pool.”

This dictat meant that no administration figure would consent to be interviewed by Fox News; Fox had a glimpse of that last week when officials made the rounds of all the Sunday interview shows on all the networks except…Fox’s.

Perhaps realizing the implications for their own networks, all the White House officially approved networks refused to go along.

“They told the White House that if Fox were banned, none of the other networks would participate. The White House relented, but in an apparent act of petulant retaliation, it restricted each network to a two-minute interview instead of the standard five.”

As Ross noted

“Perhaps the White House will next try to pull Fox News’ press pass.
That would be entirely consistent with the Hugo Chavez-style of government that President Axelrod and his advisers are trying to install.”

He also wonders if the ACLU will defend Fox’s first amendment freedom of the press, freedom of speech rights. Yeah, wonder away.

The administration has some exceedingly dirty tricks planned; this is only the beginning.

In the meantime, thanks to this administration’s willful ignorance of the first amendment Fox’s ratings have increased, other networks are compelled to mention their competitor and all media organizations are becoming increasingly uneasy about the increasingly shrill demands that the media parrot the administration line or be banned.

After all, they might be next.

Did Chris Cueller demonstrate his own nastiness when he put quote marks around his made up title of Dick Morris’s book? By doing so, Chris accused Morris of saying something that he did not say. In university polite speak this is a falsehood. Is that your best shot Chris?

Mateo, you are on target. JD, you may want to watch Glenn Beck for education; he is on at 3PM. Like O’Reilly or not, his time keepers ensure that left and right get equal time. Many of those conversations have significant depth. His lineup includes many well know people of the left including the founder of Code Pink.

None of the criticism of FOX lists specific instances of misstatements or errors of fact. Rather it is the non-specific that is repeated by Chris. Be aware, any snippet out of context is a manipulation; believing it is reason to ask why would you unless you want to be manipulated. I watched CNN do the snippet with announcer added words as they destroyed Mrs. Marge Shott. I watched the unedited version when she was asked a question and her response; then I watched CNN remove 3 words and have the announcer tell us what happened to present that old lady as homophobic. It was vicious, it was deliberate, it was a lie intended to harm her. It told me —NO screamed at me– to not believe them. CNN has not changed in 10 years.

I do not believe every word anyone utters, but I know some people have not been proven to distort or lie.

WATCH GLENN BECK FOR EDUCATION?!!!! LOL!!!!

That’s a good one, Phil.

Thanks anyway.

Fox and D. Lobo are the complete opposite. Our Daily Lobo is a great example of fair and balanced. If, for example, we look back at the archives for thirty years and take a look at articles and letters, poll of Lobo workers, writers and editors, you will surely find an equal number of Dems and Repubs!

Maybe the Daily Lobo can ask all their workers of their registered Party affiliation to prove my point.

We can also look at just the past few years to show that they reported on Conservative speakers equally to Left-wing speakers and equally put a mixture of Letters to the Editor without bias.

The Daily Lobo can also reveal the Party affiliation of all of its past editors say for thirty years.

Fox needs to learn what real Fair and Balanced from the Daily Lobo since it is a publically/government funded operation unlike any news, or gossip, privately funded organization!

JD, educate us. What has Beck said that is not true. Tell me so I am as knowledgeable as you.

The Obama campaign against Fox News is merely an attempt to distract the public from the fact that this is the most inept and indecisive administration since Carter. He is indecisive about virtually everything. And unemployment is skyrocketing because of that indecision. Fox News has got it right in every detail. But the even bigger question is the failure of the so-called mainstream media to recognize the failures of this administration.

No, Phil, I’m not gonna educate anyone, clearly – nor is that my intent.

I will just say that I prefer to formulate my own opinions based on all the information available to me, okay?

I don’t need anyone to tell me what to think. I don’t care who they are. I guess that makes me a communist or a terrorist sympathizer or something.

Whatever.

We’ve been down this road before…

I guess that we don’t need to take JD seriously since the man just makes things up on the spot.

Please, go lie somewhere else buddy, you are wasting space.

And for the record—I have never had an issue with being censored by the Daily LObo. They have always printed my articles even though I am considered radical by many.

University campuses are the pinnacles to free speech which the Lobo rightfully exemplifies.

I would not call it “opposite” of Fox though. Thats not comparing apples to apples.

Can we all agree that Obama really sucks as a President?

Many of us knew that Obama would suck royally as President, and didn’t vote for him. Many of the people that started out as conservatives but switched to Obama after his “We can change” baloney campaign slogan hit the globe- have come back disgusted. The Republican party is the only party that wants to preserve the country, the freaks are interested in only the tired, poor, hungry, minority and homeless people of the world. For this their answer, as well as Barak Hussein Obama is Socialism. There’s only one thing wrong with Socialism. Sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.

The press, any news agency regardless of their political leanings should all defend the Fox News Channel in order to pool their voices in an effort to preserve the freedom of the press. That’s one of our very important attributes as a country.

You’re serious, right, Damian? LOL!!!

Wow, good come back. You sure put me in my place!

I feel so ashamed. Perhaps because of your scathing critique I will stop thinking for myself and just agree with whatever you say. How can I argue with that kind of logic?

Trust me, dude – you are so mainstream it hurts. I’m glad you consider yourself a radical, though…that’s very cute. I’m sure your mommy is proud of you.

What exactly are you accusing me of making up, BTW? My own opinions? The Washington Post? Please explain.

God help me, but I feel a quote is in order:

“If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”
— Noam Chomsky

‘Nuff said.

Observe the hysterical idiot…JD. Nothing important to contribute, just begging for attention.

The poor kid doesn’t understand what “radical” means, yet pretends to. Keep digging yourself into a hole moron, first you lie, then go hysterical, then show how much you don’t understand. Then you top it off by quoting Chomsky, a hypocritical anarchist.

You claimed Glenn Beck is a liar (not that I am a defender), Philip just caught you with your pants down when he asked you what you lied about. Plain and simple.

I give up!

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I never said anything about Glenn Beck. I simply offered my own opinion on the subject under discussion, which is more than I can say for you. You are merely flinging childish insults.

If you actually have something to contribute to this discussion, then by all means proceed.

Obviously there is no point responding to this sort of drivel so I will bid you good day, sir.

Good day.

1) 5/21/09 I originally wasn’t going to use this because it really doesn’t have to do with politics. I don’t want all the wing nuts to cry “they are liberals” etc just because of the people in it, which really has nothing to do with this. However, Beck is caught in an obvious lie, then his body language goes crazy (like when you’re caught in a lie), then he explains that he is not an investigative reporter, not a reporter, but a commentator who does not check facts at all. Those are his words … not mine. Why would someone go on air and smear someone for no good reason? What kind of jerk would do this?

http://www.tvsquad.com/2009/05/21/glenn-…

2) 7/13/09 This next clip is Beck talking about Judge Sotomayor’s first day of conformation hearings for the Supreme Court. Keep in mind that the first day of the hearing consisted of opening statements by each member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and NO actual questioning … Beck obviously didn’t know or care that was the case before he began his bashing:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/14/beck…

3) 1/7/08 & 5/12/08 This next clip is HILIARIOUS! This is a funny look at Beck being anti-health care at CNN then at Fox, Beck, all of a sudden loves health care. What a hypocrite! It’s funny how the clip is done. Enjoy this one … its funny.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/14/b…

4) 4/21/09 This is a clip from Beck’s radio show. In the midst of urging his listeners to cut down old trees for Earth Day, Glenn Beck argued that carbon dioxide is not poison. Beck asked, “How can carbon dioxide be poison when it is naturally occurring and trees need it to grow?”
3 Steps to Prove that CO2 is Poisonous :
You will need a plastic bag, a role of tape, a friend (This test is also good for convincing your friends who don’t believe that they need oxygen to survive).
1). Take the plastic bag, and put it over your head. (Note: Check the plastic bag for any holes before you place it over your head. The test will not work with a ripped or torn bag).
2). Have your friend securely tape the bag around your neck. (You could try to do this on your own, but it is much easier to have a friend do it for you).
3). Breathe normally.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/Glenn-Bec…

5) 7/28/09 These clips show Beck’s racist comments against Obama… He has now lost over 40 sponsors because of these comments. Very Disturbing … how can some of you take this guy seriously or support him in these comments? The first clip is from a center right morning show (on MSNBC) and don’t even come with “they are left wing loons.” The Morning Joe show is NOT a lefty show and the host, Joe Scarborough, who was not there this particular day, is a Republican and the panel is very bipartisan. The second clip is the entire interview on Fox and Friends. I love how Beck can contradict himself in less than 10 seconds … “I’m not saying that he doesn’t like white people … I’m saying he has a problem … he has a … this guy is, I believe, a racist.” Nice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtwjrXhB1…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ndc2LX2u…

6) 2/12/09 & 9/21/07 This is hypocrisy at its finest. In this clip Glenn Beck slams Jesse Jackson, saying that calling Barack Obama white is a “racist statement”. Beck called Barack Obama “very white” on his radio show on February 12th.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0tgvWxC_…

7) 1/22/09 Glenn Beck lies about Obama’s swearing in by saying, “I checked. We have never had a president sworn into office without a Bible.” The problem here is in 1901 Teddy Roosevelt did not use a bible, Lyndon Johnson used a Catholic missal aboard Air Force One after Kennedy’s assassination, and John Quincy Adams used a constitutional law book instead of the bible. In fact, reading up on the history of the Presidential oath reveals Beck a liar. First clip is Beck’s rant and the second link is on the history of the oath.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/22/glen…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_off…

Above are just some of the lies Beck has committed. As if his supporters would actually pay attention to them. So there you go, Damian. Regarding your last reply to JD – I’m not sure what you have contributed to this thread besides acting like a douche-nozzle. If that was the sole contribution you wished to make,sir, then mission accomplished.

In any case, JD is absolutely correct in his earlier statements about the news.

I never said the other news stations weren’t opinion-based.I suppose it’s true: all the stations have mostly the same stories. Then they add all their commentaries. However, the current “hot issue” is Fox, and the blithering way in which they have handled the White House shunning them is laughable. I mean honestly, if I have news stations lined up at my door wanting to interview me, and one particular asshat has been smearing me, do I not have the right to turn him away?

You guys also seem to forget that all the ratings Fox News gets are based off the PRIME TIME shows. There are two hours of O’Reilly and one hour of Hannity in those six hours. The only “real” news show seems to be with Shepard Smith, although I can’t really confirm this because I haven’t watched it that much.

The crack at Dick Morris was a joke, in case you are wondering. It’s what you call “exaggeration.” But seriously, the titles of his books are nearly that long. o_O

And thank you Voxx, for all the Glenn Beck references. Recently on his show, he’s taken Anita Dunn’s quote out of context like most other of Fox’s shows, and not credited it as a joke. He had a “concerned parent” give a testimony, which is highly suspected to be an ANCHOR of Fox News who had a child that went to school there the last year. And on that same show, he criticized “VOLUNTEERISM” (just imagine the most cynical tone of voice you can think of for that last word) and cooked up a bunch of government conspiracies. I mean when I even see clips of his shows, I keep asking myself “what’s his problem?”

Aw man, voxx, you got here before me… I totally wanted to go to town on Beck. But heck, you did a better job than I would have so w/e. Damian, I’d like to catch you with your pants down now: “Then you top it off by quoting Chomsky, a hypocritical anarchist.” Wanna back this up a bit? Last I heard he was neither.
And some of this stuff really makes me laugh, for example, “liberal fascists like you want to destroy them to is sickening,you should go back to whatever socailist country you came from and stay there.” hahahhahahhaha! Ken, just go back into your hole, man. Fascism is on the extreme RIGHT. Fox News is closer to being fascist than the other stations, by dint of being the most right-leaning. The most famous fascist, Hitler, started off his campaign killing Jews, gypsies, minorities, and SOCIALISTS. To call someone fascist and socialist in the same sentence would be like if I called you too conservative and too liberal at the same time.
And Mr. Aragon, “If you are so concerned with facts, why do you preface your letter with unscientific, online polls?” What is unscientific about it? Sure it’s online, but it’s still a poll. And Chris Cuellar didn’t even try to present it as fact, as most pundits do, including those he was blasting. He said, “I am pleased to see that over 50 percent of the people who have voted so far in this week’s online poll recognize Fox News as nothing more than a mouthpiece for conservative-based propaganda.” This is a fact. Look at the poll right now. He didn’t say, “since the people think this…” he was just expressing approval of the results of the poll.

JD,

You have learned the hard way that Damian has nothing to contribute – except ad hominem personal attacks. Neither does Chayal or slowhike.

I’m thinking you must be new to the Daily Lobo comments site, because one quickly sees that their posts are pretty much hate-filled, nasty attacks. Interchangeable, really – in fact, I wonder if it’s the same person.

I’ve tried reasoning with them, but it’s no use. I have issued the challenge to one or more of them to see if they can respond with no personal attacks. The reply? More nasty name-calling! Pretty funny, even though they prove me right.

Of course, the response to this will just more names.

Oh god, one more, I’m sorry this one is just sad.
Slowhike—“Can you imagine if Bush had come out and said that a liberal news station that broadcast negative information and disagreement with his policies should be ‘hushed’?” Um, yes, I can imagine, and yes, it actually happened. The PATRIOT Act notwithstanding, Bush and his cronies repeatedly slammed any news station that didn’t support their policies, calling them unpatriotic and lying.

Really, have any of you “well-educated” people noticed that you’re talking about fanatics on both spectrums of the political parties. All they really do is spew hatred. I’m always amazed the anyone listens to them, Liberal or Conservative. Oberman, O’Reilly…they fall into the category of gossipy, disgruntled employees.

Obama following Hugo Chavez!

Notice how Obama is SHOUTING loudly during his speeches? Even at his latest speech during the full session of Congress, He SHOUTED while the CULT of followers were clapping!

During his campaign he shouted and screamed! Now stumping for other Dems, he’s SHOUTING!

HILLARY IS ANOTHER SHOUTER!

DID THEY LEARN THIS BRAINWASHING TECHNIQUE FROM HITLER, CASTRO, AND CHAVEZ?

Now Obama is taking over the media like Chavez and Castro, his heroes! There is only one independent media outlet left in Venezuela and Chavez thugs have entered the their station to harass!

His CULT OF FELLOW LEADERS IN THE WHITE HOUSE praise Mao, a murderer of tens of millions OF HIS OWN PEOPLE?

CHAVEZ BRIBED THE POOR and so does Obama with ACORN and the stimulus checks to all households which are surely bribes to buy votes for the Dems who have ruined the economy. They are then sitting on the $850 BILLION so they can “create and save” jobs right before the 2010 and 2012 election WHILE AMERICAN FAMILIES ARE SUFFERING NOW! When the money comes AND THEY SAVE AMERICA, WE’LL HAVE TO VOTE FOR THEM RIGHT? BUT IT WILL BE TOO LATE FOR MILLIONS OF FAMILES WHO GET DIVORCED, SPLIT, COMMIT SUICIDE, ETC… BECAUSE THE DEMS SOUGHT THE POWER! AND DON’T BLAME BUSH SINCE HE COULD NOT PASS ANY LAW THAT DIDN’T COME ACROSS HIS DECK IN THE FIRST PLACE AND THOSE LAWS WEREN’T COMING BECAUSE THE DEMOCRAT TAKEOVER OF CONGRESS IN 2006! Notice the stock market at 14,000 in 2007 and a steady decline to below 9000 before the election? THAT WAS A DEM CONSPIRACY SO THEY CAN SAY “IT’S THE ECONOMY STUPID!”

BACK TO THE CULT LEADER. Obama learned his hatred for America at a young age. He surrounded himself with lovers of the Soviet Union and teamed up with them in the 1980’s while at Columbia. He associated himself with COMMUNIST PARTY USA FRONT ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAD DIRECT TIES TO THE SOVIET KGB! Google Barack Obama Sundial Columbia 1983 AND YOU WILL READ HIS OWN WORDS AND SEE HIS TIES TO THESE KGB FUNDED GROUPS! Many of you weren’t even born yet but these groups he writes about were COMMUNIST FRONTS. THE CPUSA’S GEORGE MEYERS, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE LABOR DEPARTMENT, ADVOCATED THE “OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES THROUGH FORCE IF NECESSARY” HERE AT THE UNM’S CONTINUING ED. ON FEB. 17,1986 AND OBAMA WAS ASSOCIATING HIMSELF WITH THE SAME FRONTS CONCEIVED BY THE COMMUNIST PARTY USA!

OBAMA LOVES COMMUNISM! And stop calling him a SOCIALIST! That’s the P.C. term really meaning COMMUNIST! GO TO CPUSA.ORG AND YOU WILL SEE THAT THE COMMUNIST PARTY USA’S LOGO IS “SOCIALISM USA!”

GLENN BECK’S outing of Van Jones and others USES THEIR OWN WORDS AGAINST THEM! HOW COULD THAT BE FALSE? OUT OF CONTEXT? THERE ARE ONLY CLIPS BUT THE WHOLE INTERVIEW WITH MANY OF THESE PEOPLE ARE ON YOUTUBE. JUST ADD THEIR NAMES AND YOU’LL FIND MANY! COCKROACHES HATE THE LIGHT OF DAY AND THAT WHO ATTACKS BECK AND WANT HIM TO TURN OFF THE LIGHTS!

OBAMA MANIA IS A CULT! LOOK AT THE JIM JONES FOLLOWERS? LOOK AT THE FOLLOWERS OF KIM, FIDEL, HITLER, AND HUGO!

CULT! CULT! CULT!

Lol

Lawrence, stop crying man, you can read any of my posts and they are not hate filled. Its also interesting that those who “don’t contribute” are at odds with your opinion. As you can see its just not what you want to hear because what we say cannot be refuted on grounds of reason. ANd like most individuals who lose a this sort of argument, they can only resort to crying about how it is “hateful” or “racist” with no ability to strike back without contradicting themselves.

I have no idea who Chayal is, Slowhike has been around longer than I have and both these fellas ought to be proud that they scare you away with reason and break down the liberal campus culture with facts and truths.

Hound, you are so misinformed. I do not know where to begin. Lets start with one or two, then we can revisit others if necessary. My favorite is the comment about fascism—“its on the extreme right”. This just begs of correction since so many naive college grads believe the same. Have you ever questioned what fascism and the philosophy of those on the extreme right have in common? MOst righties fight for limited government, not more control—take healthcare (Hitler was fond of a national healthcare plan).

If you look at the philosophy behind fascism, communism and socialism, they are much the same. Many scholars can rate these institutions based on a meter of government control. And if your reason is that HItler killed communists, well, thats not very hard to dismantle—yeah he tried to broker a deal with Stalin, but was eventually turned down and went to war with the commie Russians, so yes he did kill socialists—that doesnt mean that his fascist philosophy was not the same.

ON a scale of government systems— the extreme right, you have anarchy, or, no government. On the extreme left you have totalitarianism—communism, fascism and socialism. Lets look at the definitions for clarification:

fascism—n. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

socialism—n. Various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

comunism—n. a theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

Beginning to see the trend here? Strong centralized government is what the right objects to (or at least is supposed to). Capitalists, free-market libertarians, and objectivists are completely against a strong centralized government and so were the founding fathers. This is why they set up a republic. Many of the founding fathers championed reason and philosophy—they believed in liberty. They also believed in private property that means your money too! This is why the U.S. was established as the most noble country.

Now, the right:

anarchy—a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society

A republic is what we are (or are supposed to be):

republic—A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

Get it now? Good. If you like to further engage in this discussion, let me know, I’d be happy to educate you. But lets keep it to one topic at a time, right now it is about the fascism. ANyone else can feel free and I promise not to attack them personally, just their philosophies and ideas.

OK Voxx,

Lets put the whole web link, not just part of it.

And which one, in particular is the lie? An opinion is not a lie if you simply disagree with it.

ANd you really should read Noam Chomsky before you “hear” about it from others.

IN his own words:
“[My]…personal visions are fairly traditional anarchist ones, with origins in The Enlightenment and classical liberalism”

Understand? Good. ANything else? This is too easy.

VOXX, thanks for your posting; later I will look at the links so I will not comment now.

A few observations of mine. Beck is clear he is not a journalist. His 5PM ET FOX show is opinion, educational as is his radio show. Both are live. Beck is also an entertainer, making his points with humor and barbs, passion and drama. E.G. His red “hot line” phone whose number only the White House has so they can call if he says something that is not fact. (Did you know a White House staff member has announced she is assigned to watch his TV show, listen to his radio show?) Funny thing is, the phone has not rang and the White House has not issued any statement showing that anything Beck has said is not true. On Monday he had a staff member dress in Mao clothing sitting at the phone- funny stuff. This as Beck laid out the statements of Obama staff that celebrate Mao, a murder of 60 million people. He has run about 60 seconds of a speech given at a graduation where the staffer said she often turns to the philosophy of Mao and Mother Theresa for guidance. 60 seconds of an event is a long time on TV. That woman’s own words were the shovel that dug her grave. During this week he has had a dog as he encouraged the press to behave like bulldogs such as Woodward and Bernstein, Walter Cronkite and others he celebrates as great people of journalism. Beck taught us it was a journalist who exposed Joe McCarthy and put a stop to that dark day in America. JD, you may learn something from that man. Your unwillingness to hear another’s opinion just makes you a person who exercises free will.

Beck educational??? Some of his guests who are on 10-20 minutes, are well respected in their fields of finance, history, etc. Last Friday he had about 40 MD’s and med students to discuss health care from the experiences of practitioners and ideas of young med students. It was a free wheeling hour with as many opinions as this page has. Next week he will have Lord somebody from the UK who has written some of the most definitive dissent to the “global warming” theology. Educational for those who come to hear what another has to say, educational when some guests disagree with Beck.

I remember Shepard Smith covering New Orleans in the days after Katrina. He railed against the government agencies that were not helping the people on the bridge he was on. Shepard showed us the raw misery, demanded to know why were these people abandoned. He was not kind to the Bush administration or the inept mayor and governor; they were all a pinata to him.

BTW Lanny Davis is on FOX as I am writing this. He is a regular on many shows. Damn he does a good job at delivering the liberal line, but he said the White House is foolish to go after FOX!

How interesting that respected journalists join FOX. John Stossel recently joined FOX. His 20 years with ABC earned him high praise in the craft. (Beck was on CNN.) Stossel is a solid libertarian who debated O’Reilly this week over drug legalization.

Readers, my point is simple: Do not let anyone convenience you to not try something that is not harmful— STAY AWAY FROM SUBSTANCES OR BEHAVIORS THAT CAN BE DEADLY, UNMH has enough hurting young people.

You may learn Chris, how to do sarcastic humor from Beck or why your economic world is not going to be what will bring you happiness or comfort because of the insane govt spending that started 40 years ago and has become so reckless that we may well be a 3rd world nation in less than 10 years. You may learn to damn your members of congress as I dammed Heather Wilson and Pete Domenici at a KKOB activity where Wilson was the keynote speaker.

Today our nation paid about $500/million in interest on the national debt. WE-you and I- will do the same every day of our life. Can you afford this? CNN does not show these facts and talk for 20 minutes with people whose background provides the credibility to his opinions; Beck does.

Stop with the propaganda. What Anita Dunn said was a joke! Do you honestly think someone would seriously mean that? You can tell by the audience laughter. If you THINK about what she said, Mother Teresa and Mao Tse-Tung are virtually opposites. The view that she condones mass genocides and fascism is simply conservative media garbage.

Also, I do think that that whole hotline is a joke. And if it WAS real, then maybe the white house is too chicken to call him? Or maybe he’s just made sure to never say anything which could absolutely be discounted.

Either way, you apparently have your opinions of Glenn Beck. Yeah, that’s fine, but I think 95% of the education that comes from his shows is from those experts (who I hope were not hand-picked to say a certain thing).

And Phillip, do not cluster me with “democrats”. Do not call the current shit economics that Bush started, executives continue to manipulate, and what Obama will most likely finally end up finishing off as “mine.” Do not call these congressmen who continue to dig our country into a whole “mine.” You know nothing about me, except that I bashed Fox News, and assume too much.

haha, sounds funny at the end like I’m dissing myself. But I’ll clarify. I mean you are assuming too much about me.

Sorry, Damian, I should have been clearer; I meant, “Noam Chomsky isn’t a hypocrite, and he’s not actually an anarchist.” People can have views that don’t fit into a certain political belief… he also strongly supports unions and other “socialist” groups.
And by wiping out socialists I meant in Germany. Like before the invasion of Czechoslovakia.
Also, just wondering, where did you get those definitions? The misspelling of communism kinda makes me wonder.
I’ll show the ones from dictionary.com.

Fascism. n. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
No “centralized government” wording.. hmm..

communism. n. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
Same here…

socialism. n. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
and… again.

None of the other definitions included the words “centralized government,” either.

Obviously there are some similarities. But the same with democracy.

Democracy. n. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
Hey, that sounds centralized as well! Wow!

The point is, rule “by the people” is (conceptually) found in communism, socialism, and democracy, while Fascism is, even in concept, not a ruling by the people.

And as for anarchy being on the right, and fascism on the left that’s not true. What do you call all the neo-nazis and Ku Klux Klan members? Definitely not left wing. Totalitarianism isn’t on a spectrum of left to right, you get both sides being totalitarianism.
And as for “Capitalists, free-market libertarians, and objectivists are completely against a strong centralized government and so were the founding fathers.” Actually, no, you are wrong (and by the way, what the heck do you mean by objectivits? look it up, the situation you used it in makes no sense). One, companies do like certain types of strong centralized government, just not the type that tax them or hold them accountable for workers’ rights. Take, for example, weapons and defense providers for the U.S. They prospered greatly trying to fuel the right-wing Bush’s Iraq war, which is about as big as big government gets (war is). Or take the many, many capitalists in Hitler’s Germany. German companies made tons of profit. If you didn’t know this, look it up, because it’s common knowledge to anyone who knows their WWII history. Ever seen Schindler’s List?
And as for the founding fathers, I’m sorry, but you are wrong again. While they certainly weren’t proponents of a very centralized government, they also certainly weren’t proponents of a right-wing small government. Jefferson, one of the fathers touted as most small-government, made the Louisiana purchase. Not the act of a small government.

This one made me laugh, “Many of the founding fathers championed reason and philosophy—they believed in liberty. They also believed in private property that means your money too! This is why the U.S. was established as the most noble country.” Well, one, the founding fathers were the richest people in the colonies at the time, (again, if you don’t believe me, look it up) so they sure as hell weren’t going to doing anything to reduce that wealth. And I’m pretty sure most inhabitants of the world wouldn’t call the U.S. the “most noble country.” Kinda a dumb thing to say, really, since “nobility” isn’t measurable, and, if you know your history, you know that, just like every other country, the U.S. has participated many, many ignoble acts.
They valued liberty, did they? Then why did they have slaves? And why were there indentured servants? Native Americans being driven off their land?
Now I know that all this will just make you label me an America-hater. Firstly, this is not true, I love America. Secondly, saying that there were faults with people and countries isn’t tantamount to saying that I hate them.
Just because you may choose to skip over the nastier aspects of America doesn’t mean we all have to. One can’t improve unless one realizes something is wrong.
Moving back to fascism vs. communism, sure there are similarities in that they are both, because they are both totalitarian. However, there are left and right wing extremes of both. Communism and fascism are on the totalitarian end of the spectrum (although communism is only totalitarian in practice, not necessarily in theory), while on the anarchist end of the spectrum we have libertarians and, say, people like Don Schrader or Noam Chomsky.

Philip, have you noticed that this “insane government spending” is happening under the watch of Republican presidents? You say 40 years ago. Okay, since then we’ve had Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. Two Democrats, one of which was only in for one term. And Clinton brought the nation out of debt. So what reckless spending? The answer is: wars lowered taxes on the rich. Most of which were started by conservatives. Not that Clinton’s war was better or anything.

OK Hound,

NOw we are getting somewhere, your ability to reason is actually there. Maybe I underestimated you. Now, do not take my disagreement as an attack, but merely a way to open both of our minds to facts and reality.

First, I took my definition of fascism from the same site, dictionary.com. Yet you chose to ignore the definition that I cited even though it was the first one listed. Why? I can let it slide since I did not choose the first definitions listed for the others(from the same site) but you argued that “centralized government wasn’t listed”, knowing that it was, thats not very honest.

Second, my argument was specifically about fascism, not democracy. Maybe we can address democracy later—I personally do not believe in the tyranny of the majority. Nor do I believ that it is an institution of the right. A large mob cannot morally vote away the rights of the minority—that also pertains to businessmen and “the rich” as well. This is why the US is a republic, not a democracy. ANd is why the judiciary is set up the way it is (a whole explanation may be needed, but I do not have the time).

Third, objectivism is a philosophy. We believe that man has the sole right to exist for his own sake—kind of like evolution and nature. This also requires more explaning but can be looked up if needed.

FOurth, I’m not sure what you know about the KKK but did you know that they were a large part of the southern democrat party? Their philosophy is by far more similar to democrats than of republicans. IN fact, their whole political agenda was originally anti-republican—murdering and voting them out of office. Also one of the oldest members of Congress,and former senate leader for democrats, Robert Byrd (D), was a long time member of the KKK (wiki probably has this for easy reference). And thats right leaning??

You really should read the ideologies about neo-nazis and the KKK? Trust me, as I was, very surprised.

Actually the truth about these things, and my disgust with republicans abandoning conservatism is what changed my mind about my left leaning ideologies (and visiting Cuba).

As for the founding fathers. Please see my other post under something like “…Changing Columbus to Indigenous Day…”. I make several arguments for the superiority of Western Culture. ANd please, read it with an open mind BEFORE you write.

I wouldn’t say that you hate America. In fact, I bet that if you have visited other countries for an extended period, that you would appreciate what you have…especially freedom of speech.

I am not a republican supporter. In fact I believe that Bush adhered to compassionate conservatism…which led to massive bailouts and the largest growth of the federal government in US history. This is policy of the left, not of the right, this is fascism and socialism. HItler was truly seen as a “good man” and was a brilliant orator. We need to question authority so that we do not fall into the same trap as the Germans did. Which is why Fox News actually isn’t so bad. It questions the authority of the Obama oligarchy.

With young ambitious minds we can fight this anti-reason and fight for a new way, a free market way. We have not had capitalism, just a government that regulates and then BLAMES the free market for its terrible mistakes. I believe in liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as you do, as our founding fathers did—their philosophy and establishment of individual rights actually doomed slave owning, as we saw in the Emancipation Proclamation.

One last and final point. Rationalization is the art of picking and choosing which facts to focus on and which to ignore. It is much more open-minded to look at all of the facts rather than pick the ones that suit your premise. When you say “Just because you may choose to skip over the nastier aspects of America doesn’t mean we all have to. One can’t improve unless one realizes something is wrong.”

Sure, I know that there were things that were wrong. But I am speaking to the philosophy of the US and look at the big picture. The biggest mistake that is made is when individuals lead with their emotions then rationalize to suit those emotions. It ruins an ability to argue. People like Chomsky, Rand, Locke, T. Jefferson and Aristotle avoided this pitfall which made them leaders in political philosophy.

Oh look, my question for the post is “what was the last name of the first US president?” How inspirational!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism

That’s where I got it from. If you paste in the address you’ll see that the first definition is the one I used.
However, I just now scrolled down, and for some reason they have 2 more definitions (past the first three) after a few advertisements. Didn’t look there, and one of those does fit your description, so my bad with the accusations.

fascism. n. often Fascism 1.A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. 2.A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

However, I believe this one might be referring more to the traits of Fascists in Italy, because of an explanation below. But whatever.

“did you know that [the KKK] were a large part of the southern democrat party?”
Yes, but that was a long time ago, and the parties have changed over the years. Seeing as the republicans were the ones who freed slaves, it seems natural that white supremacists be on the other side for quite a while.

IS THE DAILY LOBO LIBERAL? SOMETHING IS HAPPENING SINCE THE BINS ARE FULL OF UNREAD NEWSPAPERS!

Is the D LOBO liberal: TAKE A POLL OF LOBO WORKERS, WRITERS, AND EDITORS AND YOU WILL SEE WHO HAS BEEN IN CONTROL OF THIS BRAINWASHING TOOL FOR YEARS!

THESE STUDENTS AND EDITORS THEN GRADUATE AND ARE HIRED BY LOCAL NEWSPAPERS AND TV TO CARRY ON THEIR BIAS VIEWS. THEY HAVE NO CODE OF ETHICS BUT THEY HAVE AN AGENDA.

The alphabet media, meaning ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AND MSNBC ARE AS CROOKED AS THEY COME. Their stories are always BLAMING AMERICA!

OUR TROOPS can’t fight due to the media who are there to count every bullet and who it killed even as they HIDE behind those very soldiers! Every rocket shot is investigated by THE ALPHABET MEDIA HOPING TO FIND A SCANDAL!

TRACE THIS CONSPIRACY RIGHT BACK TO THIS UNIVERSITY AND ITS NEWSPAPER AND IF YOU WANT TO GO FURTHER, GO TO THE JOURNALISM PROFESSORS WHO ENCOURAGE THOSE STUDENTS OF WITH A LEFTIST IDEOLOGY TO BECOME WRITERS FOR THE NEWSPAPER! THOSE VERY STUDENTS COULD BE PROFESSORS TOO SO THEY CAN PASS THE TORCH TO MORE LEFTISTS!

But of course the loblow is liberal. There are few college newspapers that aren’t, it’s to be expected. However, I do applaud the many conservative-like posts I am seeing these days. It’s quite un-lobo like.

Yes we are beset with a generation of people who grew up with an authority complex, hating or disliking their parents, then their teachers and finally joining with their long lost liberal professors in condeming the one “big authority” of them all- the country we live in. This is a sad and pitiful bunch, poor babies who never grew up but learned to critisize and blame.

When did Republicans and NEO conservatives become such pathetic whiny victims, sad! Did someone post this letter to Free Republic? “OUR TROOPS can’t fight due to the media who are there to count every bullet and who it killed even as they HIDE behind those very soldiers.” The troops can’t fight due to the corporate Media? Who helped sell the territorial pissings in Iraq, oh yeah the Corporate Media. US Troops took an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, not prop up Islamic Theocratic Governments in Iraq and Afghanistan? There is no Osama Bin Laden or Weapons of Mass Destruction. Fox News is idiotic. The talking points are bleated all day long. It’s not fair or balanced. USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

Hound and all readers, this is for clarification and education. We have deficit and debt. Deficit spending is using the credit card knowing that you cannot pay off all of the charges, which creates debt, which you pay off with interest from future income.

Presidential budgets are a wish list, as my mom said, “the president proposes, Congress disposes.” Clinton had two years when the govt spent less money than the taxes it took in. Why is explained by liberals and conservatives on two sites: www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is…/ai_18614099/ and www.issues2000.org/…/Bill_Clinton_Budget_ _Economy.htm . The explanations given are night and day different. Pick which you choose to believe, but look for truth.

NOW to the debt, the crusher of the future. Under Clinton the debt increased by $1,539,684,631,121.04/ $trillion. Bush was awful., accumulating $4.2/ trillion in debt. Obama’s deficit for FY 2009 is $1.42 trillion according to the NY Times, USAToday. www.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/us/17deficit.html pushing the national debt to about 11% of GDP. This borrowing must be paid with interest to those willing to buy our treasury notes. We are finding it harder to find nations willing to buy our notes so we are monetizing some of our debt. Here is what has recently happened: The treasury department issued IOU’s; no takers. So they made a deal with China to buy those IOU’s but one week later we bought them back with paper dollars the fed printed. Every nation that has monetized it’s debt has suffered economic collapse: Argentina, the Weimar Republic of post WWI Germany are examples. An important interview with Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank addressing the gravity of this problem is at www.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124303024230548323.html

I suggest that political affiliation is irrelevant, finger pointing foolish. Understanding the problem and understanding the predictable results of the actions of our government will give us the information we need to take action before our nation is beyond salvation. Gas is pushing $3/gallon because of the collapsing dollar; 3 bucks may look real good in a few years if we do not stop the deficit spending. Only if we stop the deficit spending can we address the other problems that have made us a debtor nation. If we fail to stop this insane spending, the rest will not matter.

The very wealthy understand this and have protected themselves by changing their asset base and protecting it. Scream all you want about that being unfair and Bill Clinton will smile and agree while he will continue to do what he and his wealthy friends are doing. Clinton is no fool. Do you think he is going to go hungry to help you or me? FDR died a wealthy man as did Nixon. This is bi-partisan!

Every conservative I know criticized ALL presidents and members of congress for the deficit spending, both republicans and democrats. Republicans lost last year in part because conservatives abandoned them, punishing them for their reckless spending. That said, there is no excuse for what is happening today because that $500 million of interest paid every day is a destroyer. The added interest because of the projected $9.4/trillion debt we will have due to current spending proposals will destroy your future. These are hard facts. What are you going to do to secure your future?

Chris, you are mistaken that what “Anita Dunn said was a joke.” The laughter was because she asked if it appeared odd she would look to Mao (murder of 60 million) and Mother Theresa for guidance and inspiration. And the laughter from high school students was not because they knew what an evil man was Mao. Look at the entire speech on U-Tube so you understand who she really is and look at other statements she and her husband have made.

Chris, it is OK that your ideology directs you one way. The Obama admin has not issued a paper that shows anything false that Beck has said in a year. Pundits on CNN, etc. have criticized him, but not offered rebuttal to what he is saying. Listen this week as he has Lord somebody explain the errors of global warming theology and then write and show us the mans mistakes. But don’t expect to be taken seriously if you just claim the man is a jerk cause you say so.

Truth is supported by hard facts. Look at the statements of the Dallas Fed Chairman- link above— regarding our monetary policy; compare them to the history of nations that did what we are doing. It does not matter that Bush was a fool, Domenici an accomplice. They are not in office, Obama and Bingham are. Your financial future is being decided by Obama. Like what he is doing than say you have investigated and cheer him on. But if you do not like the probable outcome, than do something other than defend the indefensible.

Talk about supporting truth with hard facts.

Anita Dunn: “A lot of you have a great deal of ability. A lot of you work hard. Put ‘em together, and that answers the “why not” question. There’s usually not a good reason, and then the third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Tse-Tung and Mother Teresa. Not often coupled with each other,”

AUDIENCE LAUGHTER= (which also slightly started before this last clause)

Then Anita Dunn goes on more about making choices and doing things that have never done before… standing up for yourself, beating your own path. She mentions something Mao did, something Mother Teresa wrote, but I can’t find any longer parts of the speech. Also, a point to note: she did not ask if she appeared odd, and there was no further laughter. Which makes me wonder where you are getting all your accusations from.

I don’t see where you or anyone gets any right to trash talk her like she endorses mass genocides of fascism. You can still learn some things from terrible people or even be inspired by them without having the same mindset. Just because you use Mao in a speech doesn’t mean you want to go around oppressing everyone and shooting opponents in the head. This is character assassination 101, and you’ve fallen for it, unfortunately.

???
I’d like to ask Chris what he finds “inspirational” about Mao and to a lesser extent, Mother Theresa. Tell me, student, what has Mao done differently or inspirationally different from, say, other dictators?

Politicians in office now, are indirectly concerned with the economy of the USA. To be clear on this matter it is essential that we grasp that fact, politicians, like Obama, are not economists and they relate to the current economic picture through polls, media publicity and how it effects their chances of re-election and their party. Additionally, Obama is an inexperienced seaman at the helm of the most powerful ship on the seas. He may only just now be beginniing to become aware of the direct link between our economic situation and our military strength.

To continue to use this “ship sailing on the sea” metaphor…..So far he has allowed and supported anti- capitalists economic strategies to flood the cargo bay of his ship, our country. As the ship takes on saltwater it sails a bit lower and other ships in the sea (other countries) notice this as an opportunity and sail closer in our direction. Now if the captain of this ship (Barak Hussien Obama) decides that in order to lighten the ship the best strategy is to toss over the weapons and “make friends” with the captains of the other ships they will simply sink us.

Military might and economics are linked and intertwined in a manner that makes unraveling them impossible. For anyone naive enough to think that the world market does not respond respectfully to the military strength of the USA I bid you a fond farewell. To those of you that want to help Obama throw weapons over board to lighten the load, I feel sorry for you. However, I also have a great deal of anger kindled inside me for those who would jeopardize my country and the safety of its’ citizens.

Chris, you are right, Anita Dunn did not use the word odd I interpreted her comment that way. Lucky I did not put “odd” in quotes as I would not want to assign responsibility to anyone for something they did not say or write. She was speaking to high school seniors, young people with minds in formation, not adults who possess adult judgment and maybe a knowledge of history 17 year old do not have. What shred of good has Mao done that would allow any person to speak favorably of him? Isn’t it a distortion to equate Mao in any way to as Mother Theresa? Dunn was trying to make Mao a good guy by speaking favorably of him and Mother Theresa.

Damian asked a reasonable question; hope to see your response.

Beck showed a long clip, the lead up to the quote, the quote and 10-15 seconds after without interruption or alteration. What did he do that distorted Dunn’s words? Can she come on his show and explain herself to dispel any misunderstanding? She can call and ask for time and if it were refused what a story Ms. Dunn would have to tell!

Chris, Dunn is one of many in the Obama administration who have self identified themselves as communists, admirers of communist leaders (Dunn-Mao), admirers of anti-freedom leaders such as Hugo Chavez, Castro. We have a right and responsibility to question those who aspire to public office with it’s power. That the questioning is being lead by Beck, Rush, Hannity is irrelevant. You can hate the message, deny it’s truth but you cannot kill the messenger- what this administration is attempting to do, as Chavez is doing in Venezuela (figuratively of course, only Castro, Stain, Hitler etc. killed the messenger).

No administration official is denying the truthfulness of statements made by opponents by providing facts that show the opponent is not being truthful. Rather, they are trying to kill the messenger. Is this OK with you?

Chris, Did you read the interview with the Dallas Fed Chairman? Was he lying or exaggerating? If not how does what I have said jell with reality as history teaches. Are we, as a nation, sailing calm seas or is there a terrible storm just over the horizon?

Ok, so high school seniors are brainless, completely uninformed, and have no idea who Mao is? Are you serious? I do not believe that load of crap. “Minds in formation” might be an accurate quote, but people’s minds may continue “forming” for as long as they live. You give your own mind too much credit then, for only being four years ahead at most, if my assumptions are correct.

And equating Mao to Mother Teresa? That’s more garbage. She never said Mao was a wonderful person, or a saint like Mother Teresa. Honestly, because she uses the two in the same sentence, that’s automatically “equating” the two?

And as for inspiration, let me bring up the part where she mentioned Mao saying to the people “you fight your war, and I’ll fight mine” . It was just demonstrating an iron will, determination… maybe some exercise of genius, not sure about that. But the point is, he was an example of someone facing impossible odds. The really hard trick for you guys, apparently, is looking past murders and other atrocities and contemplating what could have been done if those powers were used for good.

Basically, all you and Fox News do is demonize these “communists” and “admirers of “anti-freedom”. I mean I can’t believe you are actually spewing this crap. You can’t accept that maybe, some politicians can see some good qualities of such systems and attempt to work them into our current system for IMPROVEMENT, and instead want to make it all or nothing. Black or white.

You can’t see any good qualities in unpopular or failed systems, you can’t recognize that people like Mao, Stalin, and Hitler were people too, and you can’t see two sides of anything. You’re biased.

And for the record, the white house hasn’t messed with our freedom of speech at all. It did not try to revoke Fox’s licenses, or shut down their station, or arrest all their staff. All it did was decline to interview Fox News. ANYONE has the right to not be interviewed by reporters for ANY reason. Like I already said: if I have news stations lined up at my door wanting to interview me, and one particular asshat has been smearing me, do I not have the right to turn him away?

I for one am extremely F’ing biased against Stalin, Hitler and Mao- and for good measure communisim in general. I’m not one to sit on the fence or “try just a little harder to see the good in everyone” no matter what they say or do. That’s the stuff that relativism and the liberal version of liberty and equality make their mistake. There can be no fraternity or commaraderie between capitalism and communism. World wide brotherhood, community and so on is crapola. You movie watching star-wars affected can join with each other, and that’s the end of it.

How blind do you have to be to see the difference between when America had a huge influx of immigrants but achieved unity because the culture was one of its essential nature and the current minority’s angst and victimhood that has turned to political ambition. Powerful agents of liberalism are at work in the USA’s schools and universities to fracture our culture. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that it’s because more minorities are immigrating- it’s a change in ideology not demographics.

One cannot overstate the importance of cultural unity, nor understate the impoverishing effect of supporting a “culture of diversity”. There can be no concerted rejection of the dominant culture in the USA.

Obama has been a long needed wake-up call.

Chris,

You write fairly well for a young man and hope that you take these challenges that Philip and Slowhike have given you as a way to improve your ability to support your arguments. Please take the next statements as supportive and not patronizing.

Winston Churchill once said, “Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.”

You are young my friend, and obviously have a lot to learn. Some places to start would be to learn about tiananmen square, what Stalin, Mao, and Hitler were really all about and what communism and socialism are. Its a start.

You should also question all of the higher education that demonizes any ideas without providing any explanation as to why. Just because a professor states it, doesn’t make it so. Without any hard evidence to your claims, it is becoming apparent that you really do not know what you are talking about and I feel like some of us are picking on you. The last post is essentially a lot of random blathering without any real direction or even understanding whatsoever.

In each paragraph one should stick to one topic and prove that point instead of simply just writing a bunch of random statements. Basically calling someones ideas “crap” isn’t an argument, especially without any direct reason as to why.

A great book may be a recent one by Author Jung Chang. A biography of Mao that identifies how 70 million Chinese died as a result of Mao’s policies. I do not think that this would be allowed in China, but you do get it here.

Your a bright kid, I hope that someday you will learn to understand some of the evils in this world, starting with the brutal dictators that you named.

Moral relativism is also an evil that must be named. Its the idea that there are no absolute morals, that morals are only through the eyes of each idividual. For example, a killer may not believe that killing others is wrong. THerefore it necessarily isnt wrong. Its only because a majority of society view it as so that makes it just—This is false, it is immoral, absolutely. A philosopher that upheld a lot of this false ideology is Immanuel Kant, his opposite, Ayn Rand. You can be the judge.

Chris did you watch lanny Davis slap Mike Huckabee up side the head? Have you heard long time Dem activist who both worked in the White House and was on Nixon’s bad boy list explaining why the Obama attacks on FOX were wrong, something Davis agrees with. Keep watching.
PS: I’ll respond to your earlier posting later.

I have some pieces of the Berlin Wall if anyone wants to see and touch them.

DO HIGH SCHOOL KIDS KNOW WHAT THE WALL WAS? WAS IT TO KEEP PEOPLE IN OR TO KEEP PEOPLE OUT?

“THE ONLY POWER THAT CAN KNOCK THE DAM DOWN IS THE WATER BEHIND IT!” STEVE CHAVEZ

American school kids, and the American public, have no idea what it’s like to live under Communism. I grew up in Moscow and all of our family had to stand in lines everyday for everything. I remember eating meat that was 99% fat but it did taste good since that’s all we had. My face had many white spots the size of nickels on it. It’s from eating fat. The bread we got was already hard on the outside and most of the time it was eaten before it got home. There were neighborhood women who kept track of everything and if they suspected you of criticizing the government, they would call you in to a meeting and ask who you had talked to that day. My family talked about every leader and it was always bad. The system was bad. Every American has to know what Socialism really is. Remember that we were THE USSR OR U-SOVIET-SOCIALIST-R but not everyone was a Communist. Since a young age, teachers knew who would make a good Communist and your name was passed on till you became a Party member who got special privileges and even better food. None of my family were ever sent to the first level and our teachers would treat us worse. The Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union suddenly fell and my family abruptly left to what was East Germany. We also saw the tearing down and reconstruction of where the Berlin Wall was but we made our way to France and eventually to the United States after a long and legal process. Any American student who admires any Soviet or Chinese Communist, and their system, has surely been never talked to or doesn’t know anything about the real Communism. The American hero is Mao? I even heard some say that Stalin wasn’t that bad and didn’t kill the 46 million people which is the real number of Stalin’s victims. I have heard of 20 million. We all dreamed of America and the freedom which is priceless. But I am afraid for this country under its current leadership that I am free to criticize. I see university students who think Socialism is the wave of the future as have been told by their professors who are too cowardly to emigrate to a Socialist country and system they praise. But with this president, they don’t have to worry about moving to a Socialist country since America will soon be Socialist. The way to recruit members into Socialism and its government control, is to make them unemployed and getting government aid like unemployment, housing aid, and food aid as they say they are helping you but in reality, their aim is to keep you living in poverty so they can control you more. I hear of Michael Moore and his capitalist movie but he never went to any former Soviet Republic to see how there are no lines for food except to get into a capitalist restaurant. Then there is the hypocrisy of him making money while criticizing others for making it. Russia will soon get rid of Putin and the old KGB guard. Is it possible that my family go back to be free since America is looking like it is going down the road of Communism with the state controls of the media, state takeover of companies, and the free exercise of thought?

Chris, Damian and I have a long running conversation regarding abortion where we come down on different sides. His view is offered in a rational way. His suggestion to you is as on the money. I encourage you to gave thought to what he has said. Now to your points by paragraph:
1. “ Ok, so high school seniors are brainless, completely uninformed, and have no idea who Mao is? Are you serious?” Yes, but not to “brainless” as I will explain in bit. High school text books do not inform the reader that under Mao 60 million were murdered, nor do they explain what the “cultural revolution” did to China’s educated class and how many millions starved to death. Some will also suggest-true or not- that many teachers are very biased to the left ignoring the facts of history: Dictators Stalin and Mao, each murdered more people than Hitler. Castro hasn’t done too bad in that column, but he is a lefty so never talk about that, just show the Michael Moore propaganda crap as the idyllic way of life in Cuba.
Scientific studies show that the brain of we males does not reach it’s adult maturity until age 23-25. Brainless at 17, no, but neither sufficiently experienced and knowledgeable or mature to care about or grasp certain concepts. Dating, sports are far more important than unearthing the details of something that happened before you are born is the norm for teens.
2. You are correct “She never said”, nor did I. Anita Dunn, telling 17 year olds that two people she turns to as examples are inferences they are equal. The experienced, discriminating mind and intellect of a mature man knows one was a saint the other a serious sinner, but not the average 17 year old. You then said, “…looking past murders and other atrocities and contemplating what could have been done if those powers were used for good.” “What could have been…” is not what is real. Mao should always be condemned for what he did. “What could…” is I wish upon a star. I bet a lot of people in China who were facing a gun barrel wished upon a star, wished “what could have been” rather than what was real. Any reference in a positive way to Mao, especially linking him to Mother Theresa, is intended to portray Mao as saintly, either deliberately or because the person is to stupid to understand what she is doing. If the latter is the fact, Anita Dunn is too stupid to have a high level position in our government. What was the smear by showing Dunn giving that speech without saying she is a… ?
3. You cannot understand the demonization of communism, offering “[some] can see some good qualities of such systems.” Can you name two good qualities Chris, qualities supported by facts?
4. “you can’t recognize that people like Mao, Stalin, and Hitler were people too.” Yes I can, like Charles Manson, evil, very evil people. 9 year old Dena Lynn Gore’s rapist, murder was a person named Terry Clark. He kidnaped Dena a young child, raped her, murdered her. He kidnaped another little girl- 6 years old- and raped her, leaving her to die in a field in eastern New Mexico. Is he the person you would leave your little sister with? Your niece. Your daughter. Would you gut the evil bastard if he did that to your daughter? Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro and the rest of this ilk are Terry Clark with a following and the power of government.
5. You are right saying, “And for the record, the white house hasn’t messed with our freedom of speech at all. It did not try to revoke Fox’s licenses, or shut down their station,…” The Noam Chomsky rule book says, first isolate your opponent, then do what ever. Isolating FOX by denigrating them, than denying them an interview the other news networks were getting was to isolate. Had they succeeded, maybe a few more such isolations, then take what ever steps to squeeze them. That is the steps the community organizer Barack Obama learned from Chomsky and his disciples such as William Ayers. The reason this attempt failed was the other networks ABC, CBS, CNN, NPR said no to Obama’s henchmen. This time they failed because some journalists understood the adage, given us by Ben Franklin, “We must hang together, gentlemen…else, we shall most assuredly hang separately.” They told the henchman NO. You cannot separate us, they stood with FOX.
You conclude with this, “…if [FOX] has been smearing me [Obama] do I not have the right to turn him away?” What proof have you that is a fact, not the ranting of someone who may not like to be exposed for who he really is? Chris find a fact-something you can prove is true- that demonstrates FOX has done anything that is a smear.

I believe you are on a quest for truth. Searching it out usually means stepping outside your usual box. Good luck.

1. Can YOU really back up your claim that high school text books don’t explain how many people he killed or about this cultural revolution? Or does that really matter? I would think all the high school students who were graduating would at least know Mao was a “bad guy” (not to be mocking calling him a “bad guy”, but that’s just some sort of… generic term).

2. What is real doesn’t matter at all in this discussion. I was talking about inspiration, if you recall, so this would only help to fuel those high school students to do good, not change the past or simply be “wishing upon a star.” Also: “Any reference in a positive way to Mao, especially linking him to Mother Theresa, is intended to portray Mao as saintly…” Really, is that a fact? Again, you are asking for proof and HARD FACTS, can YOU prove this? Oh, gee I think I have a counter example. How about the fact that both Mao and Mother Teresa were both on Time’s list of top 100 most important people of the century? You can actually find “good” things about Mao, much like many “good” things were posted about Glenn Beck previously.

3. Good qualities. Hmm that’s a tough one. How about Social Security (without all the wastefulness) and Equal Rights. Do you seriously want “hard evidence”?

4. I’m glad you can recognize they’re human beings. Now if it was my sister or daughter, mother, brother, yes, I’d probably want to hurt him. Maybe if things cooled down, I could forgive him. But I think when it comes to many years going by, it is pointless for people so isolated from these events to perpetuate all the hate. Get that out of your way and try to learn something instead.

5. Ok, slippery slope argument. Classic. IF the white house actually does make its move and step outside its rights and authority, then blow the whistles, sick the dogs, start tea bagging, and start banging pots and pans around. Until then, your talk of government takeovers and fascism isn’t convincing unless you can come up with some hard evidence (which you love so much) from say, bugging the oval office and definitively gleaning the intent.

Also, it should be common knowledge that Fox has been attacking the white house. It’s not too hard to see if you actually care to look at what’s been going on. But forget that proof. If I even feel threatened by some journalist, whether for good rational reasons and with evidence or not, I have the right to turn him away. Is that so hard to understand?

First, it is the duty of the president to embrace the pillars of our free society. He bears no right to the White House for himself as if its his private property. ALthough he behaves otherwise, Barack Obama is a servant to the people of this country. Most of his recent moves rightfully are questioned about their constitutionality by Fox employees as they should be. IF their questioning is bringing attention, then it must be worthy information—should it not? If it were so proposterous, then why listen?

Barack has an obligation to Americans, under oath, to follow our constitution. Unfortunately he does what he can, as a lawyer, to circumvent these obstacles. He has little regard for individual rights and his use of authority on many issues must be brought into question.

On the other hand, is impossible to reason with someone who says things like this about murdering millions and oppressing billions, its complete moral relativism:

“The really hard trick for you guys, apparently, is looking past murders and other atrocities and contemplating what could have been done if those powers were used for good.”

“You can’t see any good qualities in unpopular or failed systems, you can’t recognize that people like Mao, Stalin, and Hitler were people too, and you can’t see two sides of anything. You’re biased.”

Unbelieveable. And this Kantian philosophy is what is bred on college campuses. Where are the professors to extinguish this nonsense?

So it comes down to discrediting me because I say something 100% true and you extrapolate it into oblivion. I haven’t been using “moral relativism”. Of course it was wrong to murder millions of people, oppressing billions, etc. What I’m saying is, it’s ridiculous to go around telling people they are admirers of such-and-such dictator, just because they use a quote of theirs, use them in a joke, read one of their books…

Essentially, this philosophy being bred on Fox News (and yes, probably the other stations) completely ignores the facts, that yes, you can learn something from bad people and maybe there were “good” qualities in them, although it can be quite taxing to be “looking for the good” in mass murderers. It’s just completely ridiculous to try to ostracize someone on the grounds of, “Well, she used Mao in a joke with Mother Teresa, so therefore she admires Mao, so therefore she is a communist just like him who wants to take away our civil liberties!”

The observation that Chris is an “intelligent young man” are possibly correct, however there’s a huge diference between intellignece and wisdom. Perhaps it’s the “under the age of 30 thing” mentioned by Damian. It just seems a bit relentless, which is why we have the problems we have.

Many turn a blind eye to the country’s reverseing directions, turning toward a culture of chaos that will not be unified. I’m not even sure that age makes that much difference any more, when you can step over obvious cultural disintegrations and defend our leaders slipage. Sure is easy though, you just demand proof of the obvious and patience for the intolerable.

Clearly it is difficult to discern the long term motives of the liberal mind-set. Why is there a resistance to Americanize immigrants, why are there proponents of Mao or Stalin, why is the rising cult of diversity embraced? I personally look at economic well being, naivete’ and comfort as liberal collaborators. Somewhere along the line a portion of the population get amnesia and can’t see differences, can’t make jusgements, can’t tell which side of their bread is buttered.

Additionally they misunderstand the differences between management and leadership. Leadership motivates, as a result one must take care to lead correctly and in the direction that is optimum for the country, not the direction that is optimum for multiculturalism. liberalism’s tool for political power.

Chris, you can learn from Damian and Slowhike. Lets disassemble your post to me….
(1)what references to Mao the mass murder can you remember from your high school classes? My work with teens and being the dad of many has provided me the opportunity to have plenty of conversation about world events and American History. I have read the text books. None I have read have Patrick Henry’s speech to the Virginia House of Burgess, the complete Constitution or Declaration of Independence. These are the cornerstone documents for freedom and liberty, finding their inspiration in the Magna Carter. Together those four establish the foundation upon which non-tyrannical governments are built. Did you read them, discuss them in high school? What did you learn? Statements, “I would think all the high school students…” are dangerous because it tells everyone you do not know for certain, but for some reason you are willing to proscribe fact to something you do not know is a fact. Chris, this is feel good knowledge. “Bad guy” does not begin to describe Mao; profoundly evil is inadequate. And how interesting the world’s mass murders of the last 100 years are all communists: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot (remember him), Ho Chi Minh, North Korea’s father son duo. What is it about communism that attracts the most pathologically evil men? Hitler belongs on this list because he also was a socialist, just not a communist.

2. Any reference to a man of evil and a person who defines the finest of doing good for mankind that implies they are equals in the eyes of a person whose position in government commands respect, is intended to polish the image of the evil one. Had Dunn said she rejects Mao because he was so evil, because he is the anti-theses of Mother Theresa, she would have been helping those teens to see evil for what it is and that evil people most be condemned. But she did not do that….neither have you Chris. Time also put Stalin and other evil people on their front cover. You chose a bad example. “You can actually find “good” things about Mao…” Oh, please tell us a few.

3. “Good qualities [of communism]… How about Social Security.” If you pay into social security, die 1 day before you all eligible to receive a check all that money stays with the government. There is no inheritance for your family and the government can- does- change the rules at will. Galveston County Texas opted out of Social Security in 1981. The financial benefit to their county employees vs. Social security is detailed at National Center for Policy Analysis at http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514.. The following is a brief summary:
“Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system under which taxes collected from today’s workers are used to pay today’s retirees. That was sustainable in the past; for example, in 1950 there were 16 workers providing benefits for each retiree. However, today (2005) the ratio has dropped to 3 workers for each retiree, and by the year 2030 the ratio will be 2 to 1.” But there is more…. “Galveston vs. Social Security. Upon retirement after 30 years, and assuming a 5 percent rate of return – more conservative than Galveston workers have earned – all workers would do better for the same contribution as Social Security:
Galveston Plan vs Social Security * Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security – $1,036 instead of $683. * Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security’s return – $1,500 instead of $853.

* Galveston County’s survivorship benefits pay four times a worker’s annual salary – a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 – versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker’s salary for school-age children.

In Galveston, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County’s disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual’s salary, better than Social Security’s.”

Read the analysis Chris to learn the hard facts that we know: Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, just like Bernie Madoff was doing.

4. “I’m glad you can recognize they’re human beings” you said speaking of Mao and his compatriots. “Get that [hate] out of your way and try to learn something instead.” How dare you interpret my feelings! How dare you proscribe “hate” to me! A baby in the womb is a human being as are you. That baby is innocent and lacking hate and knowledge because of his circumstances. You have the opportunity to acquire knowledge but you demonstrate your lack of knowledge and wisdom by apologizing for profoundly evil people and then accuse others of having hatred. Those evil men I have cited have not done one redeeming deed. Nothing they have done excuses them. But foolish people grasp to find a single good deed to justify their evil. “Useful idiots” is the term Lenin used to describe you and the people who you allow to blind you to truth.

5. “Slippery slope argument….come up with some hard evidence.” Jonathan Swift gave us “There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.” The government has no lawful right to attack a business that is operating in a lawful manner, but you ignore this. The first president to bug the oval office was FDR according to Gore Vidal in his 1999 book, Inside the Oval Office.

“Also, it should be common knowledge that Fox has been attacking the white house.” According to who? And is showing facts, directly quoting Obama and his staff an attack? Again Chris you give us hyperbole rather than facts. The many statements made in public, recorded for posterity, in which Obama’s aids describe their admiration for how Hugo Chavez has taken over the media, stolen the private property of individuals and businesses, Mao was an important philosopher, lie about the motivation of MD’s –Obama did that- attack as evil the Chamber of Commerce, insurance companies with others on their list to be ostracized are facts. Obama, et all are following the Noam Chomsky rule book: isolate your opponent as bad or evil, then do what ever you want once they are out of the way. Useful idiots help evil men rule.

I have lost all ‘HOPE’ and hope for “ Change’ in this Obama admin. We are now going into our 9th year of war Afghanistan. Wait didn’t GW Bush catch the bad guy, Saddam Hussein? It seem’s the war is still on, or have we forgotten this. It seems nothing ever changes in Washington, the Globalist agenda of a New World Order didn’t end with Bush leaving office, in fact it is only now more visible as we are becoming a closed society. Where socialist dictators are not the thing of the past, but are now voted into office promising mass change in all levels government but making laws, such as : President Dictator can now close the World Wide Web in case of a Terrorist attack (cyber attack)? WTF,,,,what will happen than…………

The university will come to a standstill as WEB CT is no longer online, Professors are at a loss because with out precious WEB CT, they are forced to do something that seems strange to them; give quizzes during class, correct papers and actually do some teaching!

Damian, Phillip, Slowhike: man you guys have way more patience than I. You have all made some good points, as usual, and appear to have gotten the better of this series of exchanges, as usual. I, however, still feel it’s like speaking to a wall. These guys just don’t get it, probably never will. And don’t assume it is the idealism of youth either; they might actually be swampys who never got over it—too much “LDS” in the sixties or something. Of course, if you enjoy such exchanges with the opposition then, well, I guess that is the purpose of this site. Anyway, good job.

Out of curiosity, have any of you submitted letters to the lobo? I ask because it seems the lobo has a proclivity to publish letters of little significance—IMHO obviously—to real life, real world events which do/will impact students. I dunno know, often seems more like a high school paper. Just sayin’.

President Obama has yet to decide on deploying more troops to fight the Taliban, but his administration is resolved to defeat at least one pressing security threat: FOX News.

For the past week, the administration has been waging a full-bore political offensive against the cable news network. That campaign officially kicked off last weekend, when two senior administration figures took to the Sunday talk shows to talk down FOX.

Senior presidential advisor David Axelrod appeared on ABC’s “This Week,” where he delivered the judgment that FOX “is not really a news station.” Assuming the role of media critic, Axelrod instructed that ABC should not treat FOX as a legitimate news organization. “The bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way,” Axelrod advised.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel imitated both Axelrod’s anti-FOX potshots and his efforts to dictate media content. During an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Emanuel claimed that FOX is “not a news organization so much as it has a perspective.” Emanuel also lectured his CNN hosts that they should ignore FOX’s news coverage. “More importantly, is to not have the CNNs and the others in the world basically be led in following FOX, as if what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization,” Emanuel said.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs joined the battle shortly thereafter. When asked at a press conference whether the White House was right to dismiss FOX as illegitimate, Gibbs stuck by the charge. “We render opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness of their coverage,” Gibbs said, singling out FOX hosts Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity as proof that FOX was not, in the administration’s view, a news organization.

What may have seemed like partisan sniping was in fact part of a broader administration strategy to discredit FOX. White House communications director Anita Dunn, having earlier dismissed FOX as “a wing of the Republican Party,” revealed last week that the White House had devised an offensive campaign against the network. “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” Dunn explained, adding that “we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

This strategy was approved at the very top. In an interview earlier this week with NBC, President Obama was asked whether it was appropriate for the White House to determine what is and is not a legitimate news organization. That was not appropriate, the president allowed. Nonetheless, he backed the strategy revealed by Dunn. In a clear reference to FOX, Obama suggested that the administration would shun media that are “operating basically as a talk radio format,” in favor of those that are “operating as a news outlet.”

With its ominous undercurrent of meddling in the news business, the White House’s smear campaign should have prompted an outcry from the media. Beyond the specific attacks on FOX, after all, the president and his staff were in effect pushing media outlets to adopt their preferred standard for journalistic legitimacy – a veiled threat to the freedom and independence of the press. Yet, with a few notable exceptions – including the far-Left columnist Helen Thomas, who warned the administration to avoid fights with the media and “not kill the messenger” – much of the news establishment stayed conspicuously silent.

Instead, some liberal journalists turned on FOX. Most shameless in this regard was Slate’s Jacob Weisberg, who took to the pages of Newsweek to denounce FOX and proclaim that the administration was right to ignore its “skewed news.” That would be the same Jacob Weisberg who, in May 2005, decried the Bush administration for complaining about a Newsweek story reporting that guards at Guantanamo Bay had flushed a Koran down the toilet. That story ultimately turned out false and was retracted by the magazine, but when the Bush administration voiced criticism of Newsweek, Weisberg raged that this was an intolerable assault on media independence. President Bush was trying to “undermine the legitimacy of the media, or at least that subculture within it that shows any tendency to challenge him,” Weisberg wrote at the time. Now that the Obama administration has assailed the legitimacy of one of the few media outlets willing to challenge it, Weisberg’s anxiety about media independence has suddenly vanished.

Of course, one reason that FOX has found so few allies in the media is that its political outlook is anathema in the profession. But the stridency and one-sidedness of this outlook is regularly overstated. It’s true that some of FOX’s evening talk shows are often critical of the Obama administration. Even so, left-leaning guests are routinely invited to offer an ideological counterpoint – a courtesy that FOX’s liberal competitors rarely feel the need to emulate. Moreover, the network’s straight-news coverage is indeed “fair and balanced.”

The real gripe of the Obama administration, and of the Left more broadly, is not how FOX covers certain stories, but that it covers them at all. One recent example might be the exclusive video of Anita Dunn aired on Glenn Beck’s program. It showed the communications director praising communist despot Mao Tse-Tung as one of her “favorite political philosophers.” It cannot be entirely coincidental that Dunn unveiled the administration’s FOX-bashing strategy just a day after the damaging revelations on Beck’s show.

Still another example would be the devastating video series on corrupt activist group ACORN produced by young filmmaker James O’Keefe. Ignored by most of the establishment press, the videos became a sensation when they were aired by FOX – with heavy political repercussions for ACORN. The exposé has clearly displeased pleased some in the administration. An unnamed White House official complained to Politico earlier this week that the ACORN scandal took off because FOX covered it “breathlessly for weeks on end.” According to the official, the lesson for the media should be to “make sure that we keep perspective on what are the most important stories, and what’s being driven by a network that has a perspective.” This was special pleading disguised as press criticism: At bottom, it was an appeal for flattering coverage from sympathetic media.

Indeed, for all its distress over FOX’s political biases, the administration does not actually have problem with ideologically slanted coverage – so long as it’s slanted the right way. On Monday, for example, the White House held an off-the-record briefing with MSNBC’s unabashedly left-wing personalities, Keith Olbermann and the Rachel Maddow. That FOX News’s “Special Report” broke the story only underscored the cynicism of the administration’s attacks on the network.

As well as hypocritical, the administration’s attacks on FOX are politically shortsighted. While the Left has long viewed FOX as a “right-wing” mouthpiece, Democratic strategists know better. They point out that 50 percent of FOX’s viewership consists of independents and Democrats – the kind of people that the Obama administration depends on for political support.

Buying into the liberal caricature of FOX can only isolate the administration. Had Obama staffers more closely watched the network’s coverage of the Tea Party protests and the health care town halls, for instance, they would not have been caught blindsided by the growing backlash against the administration’s much-maligned stimulus package and its still-stalled health care legislation. Whether FOX’s coverage meets the administration’s test for legitimacy is irrelevant: They report, their millions of viewers decide.

For that reason, feuding with FOX can only be a losing battle for the administration. Focusing its attention on a news channel, especially at a time of more urgent concerns for the country, makes the administration seem petty and vindictive – even as it boosts FOX’s ratings. If the administration wants to talk only to its loyal supporters, it will be talking to a rapidly diminishing segment of the population. In politics as in television, that’s never a winning strategy.

DAMIAN said: “An opinion is not a lie if you simply disagree with it.”

Good friggin’ point, you hypocritical moron. Thanks for making yourself look like an ass yet again.

It’s a nine-percent bump in the two weeks since Anita Dunn’s whine heard ’round the world — in terms of overall audience. Among the coveted 25-54 demographic? A 14-percent bump. Good work, Barry. People keep telling me that this PR offensive by the White House benefits both sides but I don’t see how that’s true. If the goal is to contain Fox by framing the stories it breaks — Van Jones, ACORN, etc — as somehow illegitimate, then every tenth of a point that Fox’s ratings go up undermines that goal. There will come a point where other news nets will follow Fox’s lead simply for business reasons, ideology or no ideology; follow the link, eyeball the list of top 20 news shows, and ask yourself how far we are from that point, really. To put it in perspective: “Red Eye,” at 3 a.m., is beating Campbell Brown at 8 p.m. on CNN in the demo. (Worse, perhaps: Anderson Cooper is getting beat by … re-runs of Nancy Grace.) CNN’s made a noble attempt at semi-objective coverage in primetime while FNC and MSNBC resort to bombthrowers, but this experiment must be near its end. I wonder what they’ll end up putting in the 8 p.m. slot. Some sort of updated version of “Crossfire,” perhaps, with a new, younger, edgier cast? Andrea Tantaros versus Meghan McCain on a nightly basis? I’d watch.

Here’s a quote to ponder. Remember, when they say “last,” they mean out of four networks — CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and Headline News. Quote: “The only CNN show from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. that did not finish last was Larry King, which was third, ahead of the new Joy Behar show on HLN.” Exit question one: How long before CNN’s getting beat by Joy Behar? Exit question two: Glenn Beck is number two in cable news — at 5 p.m. How long before Ailes moves him to primetime?

Oh, and jd you’re a moron.

JD

Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many “czars” appointed by the President, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?

Did you think that another “czar” would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers— that is, to create a situation where some newspapers’ survival would depend on the government liking what they publish?

Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called “experts” deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments?

Scary as that is from a medical standpoint, it is also chilling from the standpoint of freedom. If you have a mother who needs a heart operation or a child with some dire medical condition, how free would you feel to speak out against an administration that has the power to make life and death decisions about your loved ones?

Does any of this sound like America?

How about a federal agency giving school children material to enlist them on the side of the president? Merely being assigned to sing his praises in class is apparently not enough.

How much of America would be left if the federal government continued on this path? President Obama has already floated the idea of a national police force, something we have done without for more than two centuries.

We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American.

How far the President will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.

Barack Obama has not only said that he is out to “change the United States of America,” the people he has been associated with for years have expressed in words and deeds their hostility to the values, the principles and the people of this country.

Jeremiah Wright said it with words: “God damn America!” Bill Ayers said it with bombs that he planted.

Community activist goons have said it with their contempt for the rights of other people.

Among the people appointed as czars by President Obama have been people who have praised enemy dictators like Mao, who have seen the public schools as places to promote sexual practices contrary to the values of most Americans, to a captive audience of children.

Those who say that the Obama administration should have investigated those people more thoroughly before appointing them are missing the point completely. Why should we assume that Barack Obama didn’t know what such people were like, when he has been associating with precisely these kinds of people for decades before he reached the White House?

Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government— people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America’s influence in the world.

Any miscalculation on his part would be in not thinking that others would discover what these stealth appointees were like. Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are. Fox News is now high on the administration’s enemies list.

Nothing so epitomizes President Obama’s own contempt for American values and traditions like trying to ram two bills through Congress in his first year— each bill more than a thousand pages long— too fast for either of them to be read, much less discussed. That he succeeded only the first time says that some people are starting to wake up. Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question— and the biggest question for this generation.

Good one Thomas Sowell, for a while there I thought you were idiotic. Now I know; your arguments are so backwards that it must be that you are kidding and were hoping for a response from some angry person, so that you could laugh at them.
Good job, you almost got me.
If you want to be more stealthy about it next time, omit stuff like this: “Had it not been for the Fox News Channel, these stealth appointees might have remained unexposed for what they are.” That clued me in to the fact that you are being sardonic.

I did not post this, however, Thomas Sowell is a well known professor at Stanford and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute—the man has made more accomplishments in a year than you probably will in a lifetime.

Just FYI…idiot.

Obambies just don’t get it. ya just can’t make this stuff up. infreakincredible.

right because the poster under that name must be the real man… if the poster is actually a professor at Stanford etc., than that is very sad, because the quality of his argument is much lower than, say, your own, damian or chayal. I wouldn’t think a professor in any good college, much less a well-known one from one of the best colleges in the country, would write with that style… calling president obama’s administration a dictatorship isn’t just dumb, it’s retarded. He and the Democrats in congress have no spine; they have barely gotten any of their goals met because they compromise so much. I refuse to believe that anyone who isn’t inbred, mentally challenged, insane, or living under a rock for the last 10 years would actually believe that there is some sort of takeover. The control of the congress and presidency has been switching back and forth for years. Just because it’s the Dems’ turn doesn’t mean a takeover, of course they are gonna change things, they were elected on those platforms… I won’t call it a takeover or a conspiracy when Republicans take back control (as they will, sooner or later… and then lose it again, etc. etc.), so you all (the people talking in CAPS about OBAMA ZOMBIES COMMUNISM AAAH) need to calm down and be rational.

by the way, i just wikipediaed sowell, and from what I read, “His style is noteworthy for its clarity.”, and under tenets of his writings; “The importance of empirical evidence, not only in a narrow technical sense but as reflected in the broad record of history.” “Sowell contends that too often, social policy is made on the basis of sweeping assumptions, arbitrarily selected statistical data, and ideological dogma, without sufficient evidence.” Yeah, that sounds like our poster…
And I also highly doubt that such an important man takes his time out to write in the dinky daily lobo…

wow… okay so my bad, he actually did write it, and someone else posted it.. obviously…
anyways, that is really quite sad. To think he has the reputation that he has according to wikipedia, and yet he comes out with this drivel… he was indistinguishable from the other morons out there.
compare “Nothing is more consistent with his lifelong patterns than putting such people in government— people who reject American values, resent Americans in general and successful Americans in particular, as well as resenting America’s influence in the world.” and “Whether enough people will wake up in time to keep America from being dismantled, piece by piece, is another question..” to “BACK TO THE CULT LEADER. Obama learned his hatred for America at a young age. He surrounded himself with lovers of the Soviet Union and teamed up with them in the 1980’s while at Columbia.”
Yeah, like Obama and the Democrats hate America, resent it.
And by the way, if you’ve read any of Ayers’s books (no I don’t agree with him or what he did, doesn’t mean his books aren’t interesting; they certainly tell me what he believes about things), you’ll know that he and the Weathermen didn’t like the Soviets at all. Also, if you read what Ayers’s ideology is, it’s nothing like what Obama’s policies are.

OK, so you are going to assume that wiki is an objective standard? Maybe just read some of his columns and books, you may find very interesting things about what he has to say. And many professors from the left and right respect him greatly.

Put yourself in the mind of the critic. Can there be legitimacy to what is said? Of course, just look at the argument.

What is wrong with students on college campuses these days? What happened to questioning authority? They follow Obama like sheep, there can be no question—similar to the attitudes of the brownshirts or Hitler’s SS.

Why attack Fox News? Because it challenges Obama? Students should cheer this challenge by Fox or use reason to refute what they say with some evidence. Rather they get emotional and refuse to believe that Obama could ever be likened to a dictator or a totalitarian—which he very much showing to be by declaring (along with democrats in congress) authority over banking, energy, and now healthcare. America was built on freedom and capitalism, not on socialistic control over free markets or over healthcare.

Ha,

Why don’t you use the same name? You sound really confused from all of your postings. In one, you are critical, then you are apologetic, then you are critical (again). Just read it with an open mind, its ok…its ok buddy, don’t be afraid. We are here to help you….

I don’t know what you mean by using the same name…
as for sounding different in different posts, thats because i WAS critical at first, and then realized i was sounding dumb, because I’m new to forums and didn’t realize that some people will take quotes from others and implant them, so i was apologizing for being critical as a result of my misunderstanding. I then turned the criticism upon the man who espoused those views; the same person I was criticizing at first, even though i hadn’t known it.
and as for wiki being an objective standard, no. But, the article was obviously written by someone who approved of prof. sowell, and had references to where he had been praised as those things I quoted.
Regardless of whether or not wikipedia is trustworthy on these facts, we would (should) all agree that those traits are good, and lacking them is bad. Sowell’s essay didn’t have those traits, so in those respects it was a poorly written essay.
“What is wrong with students on college campuses these days? What happened to questioning authority? They follow Obama like sheep, there can be no question—similar to the attitudes of the brownshirts or Hitler’s SS.”
Examples please? All I see is a greater support for Obama than McCain on college campuses; not some sort of blind cult following.
Believing in some of the things that Obama believes in, and supporting him in that, isn’t the same as hitler’s blind followers.
“Why attack Fox News? Because it challenges Obama? Students should cheer this challenge by Fox or use reason to refute what they say with some evidence.”
Um, have you read what Chris Cuellar wrote? He has cited evidence, and the attack wasn’t that Fox News shouldn’t bash the White House; it was that it should report news in an unbiased way. I, for one, see more right-wing bias in Fox News than left-wing bias in MSNBC. But even if they are equally biased, that’s fine, BOTH of them should turn to actual news reporting. I applaud people who point to the bias of MSNBC, just while you are doing it, also acknowledge the bias in Fox News.
That’s what I’m doing. Even though I agree with MSNBC a helluva lot more than other news stations, I’ll admit they are biased. Right-wingers should man up and admit that the same is true about Fox.
As for Obama being a totalitarian, bull. Where were you people when Bush pushed through the PATRIOT Act, or gave sweeping powers to the executive branch (e.g., more power to him, more like a dictatorship)? Even if Obama is being as drastic as you say he is (even though he was elected on those platforms), it’s not turning into a dictatorship. Please, keep the discussion reasonable. Talking about the pros and cons of certain systems is the way to go; not shouting about totalitarianism and dictatorship; let’s be realistic, Obama isn’t being that crazy. He’s just slightly left of center.
Oh, and shut up with the patronizing attitude, dude. I thought you were through with the ad hominem attacks (I remember reading a post in which Lawrence accused you of resorting to those, and you responded by saying that you don’t do that, and then not employing an ad hominem attack in your post. I guess it’s a hard habit to beat?)
“Just read it with an open mind”
Yeah, you need to do that too, instead of attacking anyone who has a problem with Fox News’ obvious bias.

Ha, some times wisdom comes from older people and should be headed. For you this old saw is relevant. “It is better to keep your mouth shut and to make people think that you are ignorant, than to open your mouth and prove them right.” -Menken.

To the point… Thomas Sowell is highly respected for the quality of his of his research, the clarity of his explanation and documentation of positions stated. Obama made a speech on 07/02/08 outside the Air Force Academy where he said, “In order to meet our national security objectives, we must have a National Security Force, as well funded, as well equipped as our military.” Sowell referred to that, concluding with this: “ What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American.”

Ha, maybe you can find an explanation- other than one using the word “moron-” that tells us in a rational way why Sowell is wrong. BTY, Obama’s 07/02/08 speech was recorded, taped. If you know history, you will know that Hitler- and every dictator- always creates a “National Security Force” they control. A study of The Constitution of The United States with the Federalist Papers and Patrick Henry’s speech to the House of Burgess will help you understand the expressly limited powers of the Federal Government and the reason the people created the government we have.

The Constitution does not allow the president to regulate payrolls, commerce or dictate who gets health care or what kind of car, etc. No president has ever attempted to do so except during WWII when Congress passed specific legislation that was germain to the war effort.

Rather than school yard name calling, do the research and prove Damain, Sowell and others wrong by the use of facts.

OK ha,

I’ll leave it at that. Maybe we can agree that it is impossible, really, to remain neutral. While I did read a survey that a majority of newspaper and newstation’s anchors and general employees vote democrat (I can’t remember where). It makes sense since democrats believe heavily in the “will of the majority” which can be swayed by how, and by which way, certain news stories are reported—which gives the media power. This may not make too much sense but think about it for a bit—not being patronizing, honest.

I watch Bill O’Reilly and Hannity occaisionally, I do not really care too much for either though. My favorite would have to be John Stossel who is more of a libertarian and has brilliant pieces of reporting lately. Now that he has gone to Fox, the attacks are really starting to come in (see NYT lately).

Anyhow, sorry about the second post, I was feeling a little sarcastic and you were my victim.

I thought the Sowell essay right on the mark. G-d, 2012 can’t get here soon enough.

It was fashionable among leftist revolutionaries in the 1960s to label our country “Amerika,” the German spelling meant to recall Adolf Hitler and indicate that the United States was a “fascist” state. With the dramatic shift toward government takeover of the private sector and the attendant diminishing of constitutional rights being instituted by our new president’s administration, it might be time to take a page from the left’s playbook and ask, “Are we now living in Obamerika?”

In using the word “fascist” to discredit their enemies, leftists from the 1960s to the present follow the lead of two Marxist thinkers: Erich Fromm and Theodor Adorno, who were among the more vocal in making the false connection between conservatism and fascism. That connection took the form, most importantly, of the identification of something called “the authoritarian personality,” a concept which emerged and grew alongside Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in the 1930s. In fact, Fromm and Adorno, as well as Herbert Marcuse and many other leftist intellectuals, were members of The Frankfurt School, a Marxist think-tank driven from Germany during that decade by Hitler himself — the ultimate authoritarian personality, and the model for the Institute’s defining psychological paradigm.

Fromm labeled the personality disorder in his 1947 book, Man For Himself. In the section of the book entitled Humanistic vs. Authoritarian Ethics, Fromm writes, “In authoritarian ethics an authority states what is good for man and lays down the laws and norms of conduct; in humanistic ethics man himself is both the norm giver and the subject of the norms, their formal source or regulative agency and their subject matter.” Fromm further asserts that “[v]irtue is responsibility toward his [man’s] own existence. . . . [V]ice is irresponsibility toward himself.” In his attempts to discredit “authoritarianism,” Fromm lays out the solipsistic leftist principle that self-reference is the only way to discover and apply values and principles.

During the mid-1940s, Adorno and others conducted research that would be presented in a book titled The Authoritarian Personality. Their work typified the methodology of leftist thinkers: they identified a number of psychological characteristics of subjects they had observed to be most sympathetic to the Nazi message and then proposed that there must be a psychological type that conformed to these characteristics. After that, they interviewed for the study itself the very subjects they’d used to derive their “type.” This pretty much guaranteed that their theory would be borne out, since they knew in advance what the answers to their questions would be.

Lo and behold, they “discovered” that there indeed did exist among American citizens people who were of the “authoritarian personality” type. Furthermore, these people shared many of their personality traits with Nazi leaders and Nazi supporters. Predictably, their character traits were precisely opposite those of the “good guys,” that is, of people who tended to be pro-communist and pro-socialist. The book claims to describe nothing less than “the rise of an ‘anthropological’ species we call the authoritarian type of man.”

Since their publication, The Authoritarian Personality and Man For Himself have provided the foundation for those on the left referring to anyone whose political beliefs were even minimally right of center as “Nazis,” a practice which persists to this day. The twisted, self-fulfilling logic of the left on this topic is perhaps best illustrated in a post by one Peter Mehlman, a contributor to the Huffington Post (and former co-executive producer of Seinfeld), who asserted that former President George W. Bush was actually worse than Hitler, because “[y]ou could argue that even the world’s fascist dictators at least meant well. They honestly thought they were doing good things for their countries by suppressing blacks / eliminating Jews / eradicating free enterprise / repressing individual thought / killing off rivals / invading neighbors, etc.”

Unfortunately, it is the current administration that exemplifies Mehlman’s “reasoning.” Obama and his cohorts eschew all authority, from the Bible to the U.S. Constitution, that they themselves do not generate. This translates to “any moral or legal principle that does not support the Obama administration’s political agenda or the idea that its leaders should have power over every area of our lives.” Through sweeping stimulus, health care, cap-and-trade, and net neutrality legislation, the current administration is attempting to commandeer the authority to dictate everything from executive pay to what end-of-life treatments are available to its citizens, from what we listen to on our radios and watch on our television sets to what opinions we can share on the internet and what cars we can drive.

The problem is, though, that in its quest to eradicate capitalism, the Constitution, and conventional morality in the service of denying “authoritarianism,” the radical left has morphed into precisely the type of totalitarian movement it had long sought to discredit. In the process, it’s turning our country into Obamerika.

Although it is cheaper to buy a pint of milk than to buy a quart of milk, nobody considers that to be lowering the price of milk. Although it is cheaper to buy a lower quality of all sorts of goods than to buy a higher quality, nobody thinks of that as lowering the price of either lower or higher quality goods.

Yet, when it comes to medical care, there seems to be remarkably little attention paid to questions of both quantity and quality, in the rush to “bring down the cost of medical care.”

There is no question that you can reduce the payments for medical care by having either a lower quantity or a lower quality of medical care. That has already been done in countries with government-run medical systems.

In the United States, the government has already reduced payments for patients on Medicare and Medicaid, with the result that some doctors no longer accept new patients with Medicare or Medicaid. That has not reduced the cost of medical care. It has reduced the availability of medical care, just as buying a pint of milk reduces the payment below what a quart of milk would cost.

Letting old people die instead of saving their lives will undoubtedly reduce medical payments considerably. But old people have that option already— and seldom choose to exercise it, despite clever people who talk about a “duty to die.”

A government-run system will take that decision out of the hands of the elderly or their families, and thereby “bring down the cost of medical care.” A stranger’s death is much easier to take, especially if you are a bureaucrat making that decision in Washington.

At one time, in desperately poor societies, living on the edge of starvation, old people might be abandoned to their fate or even go off on their own to face death alone. But, in a society where huge flat-screen TVs are common, along with a thousand gadgets for amusement and entertainment, and where even most people living below the official poverty line own a car or truck, to talk about a “duty to die” so that younger people can live it up is obscene.

You can even save money by cutting down on medications to relieve pain, as is already being done in Britain’s government-run medical system.

You can save money by not having as many high-tech medical devices like CAT scans or MRIs, and not using the latest medications. Countries with government-run medical systems have less of all these things than the United States has.

But reducing these things is not “bringing down the cost of medical care.” It is simply refusing to pay those costs— and taking the consequences.

For those who live by talking points, one of their biggest talking points is that Americans do not get any longer life span than people in other Western nations by all the additional money we spend on medical care.

Like so many clever things that are said, this argument depends on confusing very different things— namely, “health care” and “medical care.” Medical care is a limited part of health care. What we do and don’t do in the way we live our lives affects our health and our longevity, in many cases more so than what doctors can do to provide medical care.

Americans have higher rates of obesity, homicide and narcotics addiction than people in many other Western nations. There are severe limits on what doctors and medical care can do about that.

If we are serious about medical care— and we should be serious, since it is a matter of life and death— then we should have no time for clever statements that confuse instead of clarifying.

If we want to compare the effects of medical care, as such, in the United States with that in other countries with government-run medical systems, then we need to compare things where medical care is what matters most, such as survival rates of people with cancer.

The United States has one of the highest rates of cancer survival in the world— and for some cancers, the number one rate of survival.

We also lead the world in creating new life-saving pharmaceutical drugs. But all of this can change— for the worse— if we listen to clever people who think they should be running our lives.

Although I love Sowell etc. Whomever is doing these postings please quit for now. There are very few who will read the entire thing and unless you are already engaged with someone, long posts do not really work.

Please?

Phillip —“Obama made a speech on 07/02/08 outside the Air Force Academy where he said, ‘In order to meet our national security objectives, we must have a National Security Force, as well funded, as well equipped as our military.’”
And that makes you think he wants to have a hitler-like takeover of power? If so, I don’t really have anything else to say to you.
National Security has long been a conservative issue (e.g. 2000-2008 Democrats were repeatedly labeled as “soft” on National Security). Taking Obama’s weak attempt at seeming tough on national security and misconstruiing it so drastically isn’t exactly logical. At all.
Where did the accusation that Obama was going to self-appoint the leaders of this new military originate? Because I don’t see how anyone can get “I want a security force assigned by myself and answering only to myself” from “we need to spend as much money on a national security force as on the rest of our military.”
Bush says much of the same stuff. For example, on his national security agenda: “transform America’s national security institutions to meet the challenges and opportunities of the twenty-first century.”
or Guantanamo Bay. COME ON! Jailing without trial? Torture (oh, sorry, not torture, just waterboarding)? Having a situation like that one is MUCH worse than someone saying we need to strengthen our national security.

Damian, I heavily disagree with you about Democrats being more susceptible to media. My bias is that everyone who watches T.V. as their main source of news is going to be persuaded easily by the news station they prescribe to. And since Fox News is watched a lot more than MSNBC, I’d say the total number of republicans who are brainwashed by television is slightly higher than the number of democrats. In my opinion Fox News’ increased viewership isn’t related to the fact that there are more conservatives (indeed, our latest election proves that for the moment, the opposite is the case), but to the fact that they are very good at what they do.
Back to phillip; what “Rather than school yard name calling, do the research and prove Damain, Sowell and others wrong by the use of facts.”?
Who have I been calling names? All I did was angrily tell Damian to not be patronizing, which he apologized for, and I accept with no hard feelings whatsoever. (by the way, if you were offended by my use of the words “shut up,” damian, I apologize for that) You, sir, are the one who started off your post with a quote telling me you want me to shut up, so don’t be trying to play that game.
And even though I don’t agree with your opinions at all, I’m not going to try to shut you up either, because this is a free country.
As for calling Thomas Sowell’s ideas about an Obama takeover moronic, I said the idea that Obama is going to be a dictator akin to hitler is moronic, and that isn’t schoolyard name-calling.
You would call me moronic if I had said 8 years ago that Bush was involved in the 9/11 conspiracy, and you wouldn’t have had to “ prove [me] wrong by the use of facts.” This is just as dumb of an idea.

I agree with damian, you people posting long essays off conservative websites need to stop, it’s annoying, and it’s like trying to argue with a wall that randomly spews some more quotes, but nothing in response to what you are trying to talk about.

Ha, conservatives speaking of national security have always been talking about a strong military and foreign policy that is from a position of strength and belief that America has little to apologize about. Obama was not talking of the conservative view of foreign affairs, but domestically. The “Sowell” piece asks what is Obama planning to do with a “National Security Force” by detailing the law enforcement agencies that are in place and have been providing protection for 200 years. Can you justify a “national security force” that is not for external security?

Your asking “Where were you people when Bush pushed through the PATRIOT Act…” is to shift the discussion from Obama- the here and now- to the past so others have to defend yesterday rather than focus on the reasonable concerns of the future. The documented statements of Obama’s close advisors have a discernable pattern: they all applaud socialism, hold up as great leaders Mao, Castro, Chavez and others of the same stripe, applaud such brutal dictators as doing what should/must be done, they call for the taking of the fruits of American industry from the stockholders of corporations, the officers who have created the growth of companies, speak of forcing radio and TV networks to air the views of people they approve of, want the legislative authority to take control of the internet in the event of an undefined emergency. These are some examples that stand scrutiny. The words or reference to those words have been provided by other writers on the Lobo.

Glenn Beck is mocked by many, but I do not see or hear Oberman put on the chalk board an entire idea that Beck has offered, with the quotes, and then walk us through Beck’s errors. The White House talks in generalities about the lack of “news” that FOX provides but never issues a fact paper showing a erroneous statement made by their news people with demonstrable truth. Commentators such as Oberman, Beck, O’Rielly are not news people, their shows are opinion. FOX’s Greta Van Susteren just aired an excellent interview with Hillary Clinton. Hillary has no heart burn with the interview, and she stated she received the fairest treatment from FOX, of all the networks, during the campaign.

Ha, it is fine to watch MSNBC, CNN and others whose news reporting has been proven to be lopsided. Personally I prefer oatmeal cookies, finding chocolate chip yucky. Viva the difference! But knocking down people because of their preference, that is a problem. Questioning why Stamford would have a professor Sowell, is to shift the discussion from his points to the institution rather than showing his errors- if you can find any. However, you just say he is wrong.

Which leads to this: I want to know the truth. Give me hard facts, not banal generalities, not attacks such as your, “….you people posting long essays off conservative websites…” which you have not shown to be so.

I did not tell you to shut up with the Menken quote, just to be thoughtful before you speak-which is what Menken meant. My dad taught me “to put your brain in gear before your mouth is in motion.”

“Give me hard facts, not banal generalities…” from the same person who earlier said, “conservatives speaking of national security have always been talking about a strong military and foreign policy that is from a position of strength and belief that America has little to apologize about.”
That right there is about as banal and generalizing as it gets.
as for “Obama was not talking of the conservative view of foreign affairs, but domestically,” I want some facts to back that up. If all you have to go on is that one quote, obviously that’s reading too far into it. If you have more, I’d be glad to see it. But for now, you can see why, from the facts given, I’d be more than a little skeptical of the impending Obama military coup.
As for the people with long essays off conservative websites, Damian had just told whoever it was/they were off, and I was agreeing with him. Want proof? Google the first three sentences and there ya go: taken off a website (obviously conservative by the content). If people were doing it from liberal websites, I’d say the same thing. Why aren’t you pissed off at em too?
“But knocking down people because of their preference, that is a problem.” Really? I thought we had free speech? You knock people down because their “preference” is communism, socialism, or are leftists in general.
The discussion about President Bush actually is referring to the current situation, and if you had understood my post you would see this. My point is that power in this country fluctuates, and I have no problem with people getting riled up about the issues of the day whenever the party opposite theirs is in power. However, I was/am trying to tell people who are seeing this giant conspiracy to calm down. The fact is, other presidents have also supported questionable (more questionable) ideas and said questionable things, and how many of them turned into dictators? None, obviously. So calm down. It is actually quite funny to me that someone wanting hard facts before making conclusions would jump to the very large conclusion that the President is trying to turn our country into a totalitarian state, without anywhere near as much reason to do so as with, say, the previous president. Obviously, if Obama DOES do try to implement more and worse restrictions and executive powers than Bush, then there will be cause to worry; I will be the first to demand that he be restrained. However, nothing of the sort is happening, all he’s done so far is get an undeserved nobel peace prize (diplomacy? please, the total U.S. troops abroad has INCREASED with Obama’s presidency) and fail at enacting most of his campaign platforms, mostly due to his own wimpiness about pushing to get things done and the wimpiness/scattered views of the Democratic Congressmen.
Oh and as for, “The documented statements of Obama’s close advisors have a discernable pattern: they all applaud socialism, hold up as great leaders Mao, Castro, Chavez…”
BULL.FACTS PLEASE?
The obvious exception to that generalization off the top of my head is Timothy Geitner (sp?). Advised Bill Clinton, one of the most right wing democrats ever to hold the presidency. Heard of NAFTA? Definitely not socialism.
HA

oh one more thing I forgot, I haven’t watched any T.V. news (except for local) for about.. 6 months? And I’ve never been a regular viewer of any station. I think I’ve seen MSNBC about… 2 times or so. Mebe a few more while in the airport and not really knowing what I was watching. So I don’t feel the need to defend Kieth Olbermann (now I know that spelling is wrong).
I have, however, seen a few episodes of Hannity and Colmes, well now just Hannity, and one of O’Reilley. If MSNBC is to liberal politics as Fox is to conservative, they should both go.

I had a great time reading around your post as I read it extensively. Excellent writing! I am looking forward to hearing more from you.

Regards,
Hydroponics

Ha., Because individuals idea of what I said, “…talking about a strong military and foreign policy that is from a position of strength and belief that America has little to apologize about” will differ, I agree for some it is a generality.
HARD FACTS: We had the strong military but weak foreign policy in the closing days of WWII. Eisenhower (Ike), Bradley and Patton wanted to take Berlin and keep going to stop Stalin from capturing the nations that became eastern Europe. President Truman (HST) stopped them, making them wait for the Russians to take Berlin. The rape of the people and the land by the Russians is well documented. A weak foreign policy enslaved 100 million people causing them to live in indescribable misery. HST is celebrated for the Berlin Airlift. Again we had the strong military, weak foreign policy. The airlift came about because Stalin announced he was closing the highway into Berlin to starve the German people into submission, freeze them; it was winter. Had HST sent a message to Stalin that American tanks and military units would be driving on that highway into Berlin, the airlift would not have been needed, our airman would not have died, the enormous cost would not have been incurred. Yes we prevailed after two years, but sent the message we were not willing to fight for what is right- same as allowing Stalin to enslave eastern Europe.

Korea came about because Stalin believed his minions in N. Korea could invade South Korea with impunity; HST was still president, see above. Because of an error of Stalin’s, the UN was able to vote to support the South and both HST and General MacArthur ordered the American’s military to help the South. Truman may have been right not allowing MacArthur to bomb the bridges of the Yalu river. The foundation for an armistice, rather than a victory, was laid.

Ike as president did not stop Castro from taking Cuba, did nothing to free eastern Europe, foreign policy weakness. JFK allowed the Bay of Pigs operation to fail by withdrawing military support a. foreign policy weakness that set the stage for the “Cuban Missile Crises. Our military strength determined that no Russian missiles would be installed in Cuba if it came to a showdown on the high seas. Our navy had the ability to sink everything the Russians put in the water. But JFK agreed to gave away our espionage bases in Northern Turkey in exchange for the Russians turning away their missile carrying ships. WEAK foreign policy, chicken stuff that led to the next disaster, Vietnam, a very winnable war.

Both JFK and LBJ dragged us into Nam. Johnson, never gave the military the WIN IT order, or the support necessary to make that happen. The Tet offensive was a failure for the Viet Cong (VC), they captured nothing and lost thousands of personal. It became a public relations victory for them when Cronkite declared it a loss for the USA and Johnson did nothing to accelerate our activities (much like the acts of the Union generals after the great victory at Gettysburg) to end the war with victory.

Nixon was determined to go down in history as the man who ended the Vietnam war. Like HST he gave away the lives of the people, this time of the rice bowl. Remember the Killing Fields of Cambodia? A strong military, WEAK president.

Carter was the weakest president, post WWII. His response to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan was to deny American athletics permission to participate in the Olympic games in Moscow. He allowed the Shah to be overthrown by a crazy man, then abandoned the deposed Shah and the people of Iran. Killings and the installation of a radical Islamic regime happened quickly. Sensing a weak President Carter, Ayatollah Khomeini took 52 American diplomats hostage. Holding them until Reagan was sworn into office. FOX did a show on this that presented Carter in a favorable light and the victim of bad luck.

Reagan had long articulated his belief that America was a good country, “The Shining Beacon on the Hill,” a friend to friends and an awful enemy to those who would harm us. He rebuilt the American military and worked aggressively to strengthen our relationships with friends and undermined the enemies of freedom. Reagan supported the Brits during the Falklands war, those fighting the Russians in Afghanistan, lent support to the freedom movement in Poland, stopped a communist dictator from taking over Grenada, refused to sign an accord with Gorbachev that he felt weakened the USA. Reagan believed in a strong US Military and foreign policy that advanced freedom for others. His actions led to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the freedom of the former captured nations of Eastern Europe. Strong military, strong foreign policy.

Bush and Clinton were not Reagan. Weakness was their foreign policies. Bush did go after the Taliban after 9/11 and maintained a strong military and foreign policy. Obama appears weak on Afghanistan, his running around the world apologizing for imagined wrongs committed by the USA is not a sign of strength. Time will tell.

Many Conservatives look at Reagan as the president who defined a strong America both military and in foreign policy initiatives. Millions of people are free because of the policies he established and support he gave to freedom movements.

The history lesson may help some to understand. The quotes of Obama’s czars are readily available, have been shown on FOX, played on many talk shows. Look at the information you are missing by limiting your sources of information. No show should be forced off the air because of their views. I found Air America a bucket of vomit, but if they can pay the bill for air time, OK with me.

Thanks for the history lesson… well not really, since I already know my history, and I didn’t need a recap of all the misconceptions held by conservatives over the years. I particularly liked the whole Berlin Wall possibilities thing going under “hard fact,” and helping Great Britain defeat the Argentinians over the Falkland Islands being good foreign policy… basically saying, supporting allies even if there is no logical reason to do so.
And I also liked how last post you accused me of changing the subject to divert attention from the matters at hand, but then this time around you don’t answer any of my points. And I never said Fox should be forced off the air, and you won’t hear me say in the future; but I stand by the view that they do not report unbiased news. Saying “[Fox News and MSNBC] should both go” was my sentiment that they should “go” as in people should stop watching them. At least for news. Entertainment, maybe? But definitively not saying they should be forced off the air.

Ha,”…I already know my history” implies you cannot learn anything new.
I notice no refutation of my explanation of weak vs strong foreign policy and the consequences of weak. You enumerate no “misconceptions” just say they exist. If the actions of Reagan were not responsible for the end of communism’s control of the peoples of eastern Europe what was? Give us some hard facts.
“Didn’t amswer any of my points.” The pages of history provide examples of strong foreign policy and the added bonus was to point to the horrible things that happen to people when we are weak kneed. Hitler and Tojo were able to turn loose people who savaged their conquered because nations had weak foreign policy.
You wanted statements directly attributed to Obama’s people, numerous posts in this posting have provided them, repeating what has been provided is unnecessary, and Google has an abundance of them listed.
You clarified your statement“should both go.” However, I will determine what is news, conjecture, opinion. I do not need nor want anyone to decide for me or thee.

Like I said, its near impossible for news to remain objective—especially if they are trying to make a profit. Hannity does not try to hide what his political views are, and challenges to any administration is crucial to observing the truth (although he does not do it too well). Let the viewer decide. It is arrogant and pretentious to assume that one individual knows what is best for others, and what is “best for the country—we can only get there by reasoning (which is interesting in how the dems do not want to reason out the healthcare, but rather, ram it through, simply to please their constituents—f-ing puppets).

My core philosophy is that people should be able to do what they want as long as they do not support coercion, or use of force, against others. COercion is evident in openly supporting the silencing of FOX, or talk radio, and does a great disservice to Americans, as well as a grave threat to liberty—the open exchange of ideas. Obama does just that with his criticism of Fox (nearly a threat with the full backing of the power of government). Obama also exemplifies this with the recent signing of the extention of “hate speech”, which is, essentially, another tool to use to silence dissent (and quite arguably) another step to totalitarianism. While I believe what may be classified as “hate speech” is ignorant, it is too subjective and far reaching.

Pelosi, Reed, (big time supporters of the Fairness Doctrine) and now Obama, with this signing of this extended law, should be questioned, and hopefully removed, from office in the next elections. These attacks on free speech are serious, and should not be marginalized. There are unAmerican consequences to these sorts of behaviors, and the left should also be very concerned. For these same tools can, and will, be used against them once another individual may take office and appoint someone whom may be in charge of the FCC—and silencing their (the left’s) dissent as well. These chains on free speech must be lifted—abolish the FCC, remove hate speech laws, remove net neutrality, do not support the Fairness doctrine and let us be American.

As for individuals who may fuel these censoring of ideas, Obamunists, Obamazomibes, whatever you want to call them, they can be reasonably likened to Mussolini’s brownshirts. A tyranny of the majority is the last thing that we should ever desire.

Philip, I didn’t respond to your points because they are/were OFF TOPIC. you complained about my changing the subject, I explained that it really had something to do with the topic, and then you responded with a completely unrelated post, and complained when I dismissed it, wanting me to clarify why I thought you were wrong, instead of actually discussing the topic with me. Hypocritical much?
I did, in fact, enumerate some of the misconceptions (in my view, obviously, since we are all voicing our opinions), notably, “I particularly liked the whole Berlin Wall possibilities thing going under “hard fact,” and helping Great Britain defeat the Argentinians over the Falkland Islands being good foreign policy… basically saying, supporting allies even if there is no logical reason to do so.”
Where is your response to the points I brought up, which were, after all, on topic? Not to be seen… and you were the one saying I was changing the subject to get away from a sticky topic. What do you call what you did, then?
And Damian, here we go again with the generalizations. “dems do not want to reason out the healthcare, but rather, ram it through, simply to please their constituents…” Actually, there are plenty of examples of dems TRYING to reason with their opponents. Obama in particular has gone out of his way in town hall meetings to explain health care reform. Here is a link showing one dem’s views on the subject; certainly employing reason, not emotion. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts960
As for restricting free speech, again, what about the PATRIOT Act? Not that either is excusable, I believe both hate speech laws and the PATRIOT Act’s removal of rights should be removed. However, the PATRIOT Act does serve one purpose in this discussion; although Bush removed rights, he didn’t become a scary dictator, nor has any other president who either the left or the right thinks is going to do so. Obama’s laws aren’t even close to Bush’s (so far) in rights-removal, so again, just calm down. Sure there were liberals who thought that Bush’s laws were turning the country into a dictatorship, but I’d bet that you two (philip and damian) looked down on that. So don’t sink to that level. Seems pretty logical to me.
One last point: Where did you see that Obama wanted to CENSOR Fox? I’ve only heard of what Chris Cuellar mentioned earlier, “And for the record, the white house hasn’t messed with our freedom of speech at all. It did not try to revoke Fox’s licenses, or shut down their station, or arrest all their staff. All it did was decline to interview Fox News. ANYONE has the right to not be interviewed by reporters for ANY reason. Like I already said: if I have news stations lined up at my door wanting to interview me, and one particular asshat has been smearing me, do I not have the right to turn him away?”
By the way, of all you “straight talkers” (no you haven’t used that phrase, but that seems to be the underlining characteristic that Damian, Philip, and to a small extent Slowhike laud their posts as having), none of you have responded to this point that Chris made; instead you continue to claim that Obama is trying to censor Fox. Facts please?

oh and about the “I already know my history” quote, I know that part of U.S. History very well, and I have already HEARD that side of it, which I don’t subscribe to at all. Just to clarify.
And on a seemingly unrelated topic, philip, if you support the nuking of two cities in japan (if you don’t then fine, but it seems like the logic of it fits into your philosophy of “America first”), then I want to know what the difference is between that instance and allowing the Russians to reach Berlin first? Both involved saving American troops (the Russians lost MASSIVE numbers of troops on the way to Berlin), at the expense of civilians in other countries. What’s the difference? Also, “what ifs” like this one are completely useless in talking about the leadership choices. If we had gone with the hot-headed option of racing to Berlin, that could very easily have escalated the post-war situation into an immediate realization of the Cold War (e.g. massive amounts of death), which would be much worse than Eastern Europe being under Soviet control for fifty years.

Ha, we nuked Japan, as history demonstrates, to avoid the house to house fighting that would have occurred if we had invaded their main island. History tells us Japanese women were training with sharpened brook sticks to meet our invasions forces on the beach. Far more civilians and American military would have died than were killed by the atomic bombs had Truman decided against the bombings. Regardless of how we ended the war, we, not the Russians, would occupy Japan. Different scenario than Europe.

The situation in Germany was not the same because we already knew what Stalin was in the words of President Truman who wrote, “He is the most evil SOB I have ever met.” Our weakness in allowing the Russians to capture eastern Europe, east Germany and Berlin meant we co-operated in the enslavement of millions under the heal of an evil man, a pathological murder. That is not “what ifs” that is history.

The “cold war” was part of WWII. Stalin enslaved the peoples he conquered. He murdered the Polish military leaders in mass executions. Those white Russians we foolishly sent back to Russia were executed. His military stripped the German factories of everything and shipped the machinery to Russia. Truman did nothing to stop the rape and pillage, that is not “what ifs” it is history.

You appear to be quantifying with, “that could very easily have escalated the post-war situation into an immediate realization of the Cold War (e.g. massive amounts of death), which would be much worse than Eastern Europe being under Soviet control for fifty years.” Not attempting to stop Stalin resulted in the killing to be 6 on a 1-10 scale, but had we acted forcefully, it would have been an 8. I guess 6 is better than 8…. your “what if.” Experience tells us the quicker you stop a bully the less damage he does.

Regarding health care… “Obama in particular has gone out of his way in town hall meetings to [talk with republicans].” Ha, those meetings had hand picked audiences. I could not get a ticket if I made a donation, not can I get one for my D members of Congress activities. Obama has not met with the Republicans since April. No opposing ideas are in either chamber’s bill. Most cannot even get a vote as Nancy does not tolerate opposing ideas.

Legislation that defines “hate speech” is very dangerous. I do not want your postings—-even IF you said the location of my brain is very near my gluteus maximus, or suggested I cannot understand because I am a cracker- regulated by anyone. This is an adult blog that does not need any big brother nanny doing what is done in Canada where preachers quoting their religious texts are fined and can go to jail. Don’t like the bible, don’t believe it. Don’t like Glen Beck, don’t listen to him or buy his books.

Many conservatives and libertarians oppose the Patriot Act. It is bad legislation.

thanks for proving my point and not addressing the issue or providing evidence. the only things you semi touched on were PATRIOT Act and the town hall meetings; and you apparantly missed my major point that, although we had the PATRIOT Act, Bush didn’t turn into a dictator, so there is no reason to think that Obama will. And calling the PATRIOT Act “bad legislation” seems a tad hypocritical since you are so vehemently opposed to any impingement of free speech. The amount you complain/worry about Obama is much greater than it warrants, if all that the PATRIOT Act was was “bad legislation.” If your assumptions about restriction of speech leading to totalitarianism crossed the aisle, then you would be a lot more outspoken about the PATRIOT Act.
I would also like some factual clarification on the closedness of the town hall meetings; I was under the impression that there was an incident in which a man brought a firearm to one of said meetings, and was definitively anti-obama. Doesn’t sound like the kind of guy Obama would hand-pick…
I don’t really get what you were saying about the 1-10 scale, and obviously it’s not assured that the situation would have escalated. However, my point was that there was a higher chance for much more drastic consequences (worldwide nuclear war=death to the world as we know it), and that the situations in Europe and Japan were similar. Not the same, obviously. But both involved a trade-off of American soldiers’ lives for the wellbeing of others.

Martin Heinrich issued a press release announcing the time for his town hall meeting, then sent out an email to the union people and dem party telling them to come 1 hour earlier. Ask him for an explanation.

Other congressman had town hall meetings that required a ticket for admission, with the tickets being distributed by the local democratic party office, happened in Florida- congressman Ron Klein. All of Obama’s meetings are by invite only, the dem party selects the invited. Call and ask them, don’t believe me. I have been to activities of both presidents Bush, no tickets, just show up. First Bush had meeting at Civic Plaza, wide open.

The gun carrier was outside in AZ. The law is clear, as in NM, it is legal to carry an exposed weapon. BTY did you know CNN & MSNBC cropped the picture of that man? FOX showed the entire video of a black man. The others did not allow views to see that he was black while talking about the angry people who came to the meetings and showing pictures of white people. Slanted news?

What word do you choose to use rather than bad to describe the patriot act? Not all it’s provisions are “bad” or infringing on the Constitution.

The situation in Japan and Germany are only similar in the view of a person denying history. Only the USA possessed the ability to deliver nuclear weapons world wide. WE had long range bombers with the bombs in Europe and Asia, Russia had no way to deliver her smaller weapons until developing short range missiles—the kind they tried to put in Cuba.

“thanks for proving my point and not addressing the issue or providing evidence” of what? You have not given your view of why a presidential candidate would announce that he would create a “national security force…” or what security goals.

ON the patriot act—

WHile pointing to the bad behavior of Bush does not justify any bad behavior by Obama—Obama actually supports the wire-tapping program. So there really isn’t a point to be made there. I never really did support the president who expanded the federal government to the largest size in U.S. history (Bush) and I do not support the doubling down, by Obama.

As for the healthcare—Pelosi recently stated that she didn’t care if it means that they are going to lose more seats in the 2010 election, she wants a healthcare bill now. Reed also stated that with or without Republicans, we are going to pass a healthcare reform.

The legislators should at least read the bill and debate each and every point on it. This is the most far-reaching bill in U.S. history and we should be taking months to debate this 2000 page document. WOuldn’t you agree? Instead, the democrats want a vote on it right away! And it will not even be enacted until 2013. Why? Why not invite proponents from both sides of the bill to debate every aspect. Lets get it done right. That called “ramming it through”.

Its total bullshit to say that they (dems) want to debate it, yeah, they do, for a couple days on the floor—then vote immediately.

Back to the Fox News point. Barack Obama should not, as a public servant to all U.S. citizens, not just the ones who share his vision, pick and choose media outlets. And don’t try to claim that Bush did that, he didn’t. Obama picks and chooses who he can interview with, but should not pick what general news outlets can come to the White House. Especially when Fox represents a large American constituency. It wasn’t an interview, it was picking and choosing who could attend, as a press core, an interview with the Treasury Secretary—so get a grip on the facts please.

Obama, like Bush, has an obligation to answer questions, especially with his policies attempting to control more of the U.S. economy and AMerican lives. Why are you defending this fascist so much?

Obama only allowed supporters of his campaign into his town hall meetings. He also ranted for most of the time only taking a few questions that were already pointed for him to answer. You can see the blathering for yourself.

This is straw man crap here: “Sure there were liberals who thought that Bush’s laws were turning the country into a dictatorship, but I’d bet that you two (philip and damian) looked down on that. So don’t sink to that level. “—I never said anything of the sort.

What question do you have?

ARG!
I just wrote for about… 20 minutes and I got an error message saying return to the page you came from… and my stuff isn’t here.
Wow that’s annoying.
I guess I’ll just respond to one thing real quick and write it all up again later.
This part made me laugh, when talking about knowing history: “Only the USA possessed the ability to deliver nuclear weapons world wide. WE had long range bombers with the bombs in Europe and Asia, Russia had no way to deliver her smaller weapons until developing short range missiles—the kind they tried to put in Cuba.” FAIL!
we had NO nuclear weapons after WWII! Also, did you know that the most fatal bombing in WWII was the CONVENTIONAL bombing of Dresden? Meaning that people can die from conventional bombs just as easily as from nukes. Besides, war had just ended, starting another one was not only risky (because there’s always the possibility we would lose), but against the will of the populace. As for Eastern Europe, they were actually not all wishing they could be under American rule; heard of Radio Free Europe? That was the West’s attempt to get Eastern Europeans to realize that America wasn’t void of culture (widely believed due to disinformation by the Soviets). So at the time, the inhabitants of Eastern Europe wouldn’t necessarily have greeted Americans as liberators, especially since the “liberation” would involve bombing/shelling of towns (if you don’t believe me, look at the liberation of France).
Anyways, I’ll write more later, I’m just too frustrated for now.

The Lobo has an annoying habit of dumping. Copy than post.

Right, on Aug 10, 1945, maybe we did not have any more nukes. People at Los Alamos and other sites were busy making more-didn’t take long before we had a stockpile and we had the B29’s to deliver then anywhere in the world. No other nation had that delivery vehicle.

The most fatal bombing during WWII was not Dresdan, 25K dead (dailymail.co.uk ,2008-10-04), but Tokyo, February of 45 with 100K dead. We fire bombed about 20 square miles of the city AND the Japanese still did not surrender. After 2 A bombs with a promise to drop a 3rd on Tokyo the dictators surrendered.

We did not need to start another war [with the Russians] after defeating Germany, we needed to push on NOT STOP as HST ordered Ike to do. We would have captured Germany and with the greater military and supplies—-our Liberty ships were bringing American supplies to the Russians, cutting them off was simple— Stalin could not sustain an attack by the USA and England.

Radio free Europe, yes I heard of it, was created in 1948 to bring news, not culture to the nations enslaved by Stalin. Radio Free where-ever still does this.

Seams to me, even with the destruction of France by our military, the French people were beyond grateful to see us, as were the Italians and others we rescued. They were willing to pay, as JFK said, “Any price….” for freedom.

I notice Ha, you never say a harsh word about Stalin, the brutality and mass murders committed by him and his followers Ho Chi Mien, Mao, Castro, etc. and the enslavement of more than 1 billion people.
Why the silence?

The place of nuclear weapons in ending the war remains extremely controversial. Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa recently used Japanese sources to argue the Soviet entry did more to push Japan to surrender than the two bombs.

Summerspeak, I believe the value of looking at alternatives long after the deeds are done is we have added information for the future. In July of 1945 the information Truman (HST) had was simple: The Japanese soldier did not surrender, he died fighting; every island battle taught us that. Japanese women were being trained to meet us on the beaches, armed with sharpened broom sticks- photos exist- if we invaded their home island. Our fire bombing of Tokyo did not result in surrender, our victories did not deter the Japanese war lords.

HST had 6,800 dead marines from Iwo Jima.12,000 Americans died on Okinawa, plus 220,000 or more Japanese military and civilian dead from that 100 day battle. 12,000 US dead to take one island! What price would Japan pay to defend her homeland, how many American’s would die? The decision for HST was simple: drops the bombs, kill some so that more may live.

BTY, more people died on Okinawa then were killed by those 2 bombs.

Russia declared war on Japan August 8, 1945, 2 days after the Hiroshima bombing, arguably to gain spoils. Manchuria, with her year round port, was their goal as it was during the Sino-Japanese war of 1904-05. Russia was not a factor in Japans surrender despite the re-writers of history.

Ha, I just read a story by Jo Eager, a TV reporter from San Diego who was a reporter working at a radio station in Berlin when the wall fell. He recorded this interview (this is only a small part) with “22 year old Joern.[who] told me how, when he approached the border crossing , he found it hard to comprehend that he could actually cross into the west. As he walked through the checkpoint, he became fully conscious, taking in everything. He looked at the street, smelled the air, noticed every tree, every stone, every building.” [Quoting Joern] “It is the most average street in the world. But that first day, I needed an hour to walk 500 meters. I watched the people, how they did not notice what was happening to me. I can do what I want- there are no words for this. I have been asked a few times to expressed my feelings at that moment. It is not possible. You have to understand what it meant to me. I will never forget.”

Eager also recounts seeing a 21 year old woman, seeing the west for the first time in her life, tears streaming down her cheeks as she walked through the opening in the wall at Potsdamer Plaz. Can we imagine, no guards ready to shoot her!

Reagan’s legacy, is the effect of those words, “Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

Weak men condemn people to horrors. Lenin described those who ignored or made excuses for his evil deeds as “useful idiots.” Jefferson told us the price of liberty: eternal vigilance and willingness to stand firm against any encroachment on our freedom.

You’re taking issue with some of best modern historical writing on the subject, Howell. I suggest at least reading Hasegawa and company before dismissing them.

Regardless, I think the moral issue goes beyond the nuclear weapons and to the use of civilian bombing overall. US air attack killed hundreds of thousands of noncombatants. This slaughter does seem to have pushed Hirohito to surrender, but that alone doesn’t justify it. I have little sympathy for anyone claiming wonders from city-devastating explosives. If that’s the best we, as a species, could come up with, then it stands as a testament to our profound stupidity. We’ll never completely escape that shame. We can only strive to do better in the future.

Summerspeaker, I believe we have two different issues.
1. Not one “fact” I have presented has been disproved.

2. The history of mankind is one of violence with none being exempted. I am confident you know how the male children of conquered cities were brutalized before death, the female children taken into slavery, the adult women raped, sometimes to death. These were not just the actions of Alexander the Great and his army but the Germans, Japanese (rape of Nanking, etc.), Russians, Viet Cong and a long list of other modern day despots. Our nation has not sanctioned such brutal behavior, punishing miscreants. Agree?

Neither Hasegawa or others who have condemned the nuking have proven the Japanese civilian forces were ready to surrender peacefully if we invaded. They can not because such proof does not exist. The people accepted surrender because Emperor Hirohito told them to do so AFTER Nagasaki was bombed.

History is replete with facts:In most battles only about 5% of the Japanese military were alive at the end to be captured. On Iwo and Okinawa, their military effectively buried soldiers alive, they had a corps of Kamikaze pilots, suicide soldiers with satchel charges. And the list goes on.

The only choices for Truman were see the death of hundreds of thousands- millions?- of American soldiers and Japanese civilians on the beaches and in street fighting or find a way to convenience the war lords and emperor to surrender. Those two bombs ended the war with the least dead. I agree, not so good if you are one of the dead. And a tough moral choice.

I believe every violent act is a failure, a failure by the initiator whose moral plane is not yours. When we are assaulted we have the choice to surrender and be misused, flee if possible or fight to the death of the attacker or ourself. Is there a choice 4?

It is illogical to believe that World War II could have been ended by diplomacy or non-retaliatory means. Of course, hindsight is always 20/20 and to claim that this should have been the foresight is simply impossible.

Indeed, the firebombings of Dresden and Hamburg, as well as the violent acts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were heroic. Who is really to blame for such horrific acts…well, thats simple, the perpetrators were. Japan and Germany should have never engaged in such immoral acts. We had the moral right to retaliate after Pearl Harbor and end the war with our might. It could have not been done more peacefully.

And for every time someone claims that more discretion could should have been used, the opposite is as justifiable. The bomb was not dropped on Tokyo, the heart of the Japan.

1. President Bush was famous for lacking “intellectual curiosity,” while President Obama has been called “the smartest guy ever to become President.” Who reads more books: Bush or Obama?

2. Bush was often considered to be in the grip of Big Oil. In contrast, Obama is a Harvard-educated lawyer. Which industry contributed more than five times as much as the other to politicians: the oil & gas industry, or lawyers/law firms?

3. Bush’s Christian faith was at the core of his political identity, and he was considered to be in the grip of the “religious right,” while Obama is considered more open-minded. In fact, Obama has said, “my faith is one that admits some doubt.” Which one refers to Jesus more in public speeches?

4. Bush was criticized for excessive federal spending and running up huge deficits. Bush’s deficit in 2008 was the largest in history. In fact, President Obama said,
It’s a little hard for me to take criticism from folks about this recovery package after they’ve presided over a doubling of the national debt … What I won’t do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place.
Whose deficit was more than triple the size of the other’s: Bush’s in 2008 or Obama’s in 2009?

5. While Obama criticized Bush for “a doubling of the national debt,” the federal debt held by the public went from 35.1% of GDP in 2000 to 40.8% of GDP in 2008 — an increase of 16% as of fraction of GDP. What is it expected to be in 2016 under Obama’s budget plan?

6. Obama criticized Bush for Guantanamo, military tribunals, wiretaps, troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and “signing statements.” Which one of these Bush practices has Obama ended?

Answers:

1. Bush. Obama started reading a book in April and had not finished it by June, putting him on a pace of no more than ten books per year. Bush read forty to ninety-five books a year while President, not counting a new and complete reading of the Bible every year. Bush scored 1206 on his SAT, putting his IQ in the 125-130 range, smarter than 95% of the population and in the company of Lincoln, Rousseau, and Thackeray. He graduated from Yale and earned an MBA from Harvard. Obama earned a law degree from Harvard, but has not released any of his academic records. Despite what you might have heard, we know nothing of his IQ, test scores, or grades from any of the schools he attended.

2. Law firms. In the 2010 cycle so far, Lawyers/Law Firms have contributed $33,779,866 (81% to Democrats), and the Oil & Gas industry has contributed $6,293,631 (34% to Democrats). In the 2008 cycle, the numbers were $233,499,989 (76% to Dems) from lawyers and $35,564,322 (23% to Dems). In all, lawyers contributed about six times more to politicians than the Oil & Gas industry.

3. Obama. Per Eamon Javers at Politico, “As president, Barack Obama has mentioned Jesus Christ in a number of high-profile public speeches — something his predecessor George W. Bush rarely did in such settings.”

4. Obama’s 2009 deficit, the largest in U.S. history. It was more than three times that of Bush’s record 2008 deficit. Per the Congressional Budget Office, the 2008 deficit was $455 B, and the 2009 deficit was $1,417 B. As a fraction of GDP, it was the largest deficit since 1945.

5. The CBO expects the debt held by the public to be 77.1% of GDP in 2016 under Obama’s plan, or an increase of 89% as a fraction of GDP, and the highest level since 1950.

6. None.
Guantanamo is still open and probably will be into 2010, maybe longer.
Obama is keeping military tribunals and clandestine wiretapping programs.
Obama plans to keep most troops in Iraq until the summer of 2010. Even then, he is talking of keeping about 50,000 troops there (compared to about 124,000 now). The number of US troops in Afghanistan increased from 37,000 in January 2009 to 62,000 by August 2009, and Obama is expected to send over 30,000 more. Total number of US troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan has increased under Obama so far (from about 184,000 in January to 186,000 in September).
Obama has used signing statements himself.

Randall, thanks for the posting; keep it handy to illuminate the fallacies of the ‘emotions are facts’ crowd who confuse others.

No, I don’t agree with your articulation of American exceptionalism, Phillip. This country has countless atrocities under its belt. As mentioned above, Americans killed hundreds of thousands of noncombatants during World War II. You find similar numbers from the conflicts in Vietnam and Iraq.

Look, we can’t change the past. Counterfactuals only matter as they relate to the present and future. That’s why I reject justifying the atomic bomb and civilian bombing in general. It sets a cultural precedent for aspiring mass murderers to draw upon. We should instead view historical massacres as tragic and diligently strive to avoid repetition.

I have little respect for utilitarian morality. Even assuming the unrealistic scenario of a stark choice between devastating opposing cities or seeing your own devastated, I wouldn’t accept slaughter. I’d rather die than become a monster.

Neville Chamberlain and Prime Minister Quisling put your final thought into practice. We know the outcome.

Thanks for the stats. They undermine conservatives trying to spread panic about Obama about as much as they undermine blind obama lovers. I fit into neither of those camps, so fine with me. A few of your stats, however, are pointless (#s 1 and 4 come to mind). As for #5, it is actually factually incorrect. The CBO predicts 67.1%, not 77%
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10521/2009BudgetUpdate_Summary.pdf

Acutally,#2 is also on shakey factual ground since a quick search on those stats yeilds nothing but the quiz that you reposted here, and none of the first ten have any citations for that info (i stopped checking after ten), and that point misses the point of being in the grip of interests. If obama is going to raise taxes on the rich, that certainly isn’t in the interest of law firms, for obvious reasons.
The only stat worth mentioning is #6, and it is perfectly true. One of the reasons that I never liked Obama; he isn’t doing anything about our wars, only increased troops by a bit. NO pull out or anything similar.
Please stop posting these copy and pasted posts, whoever you are.

Phillip: Bull. It wasn’t a choice between bombing others’ civilian centers and getting your own bombed. The Allies only bombed German and Japanese civilian centers after the tide of the war had turned; English cities weren’t under attack anymore during, say, the bombing of Dresden (which was actually up to 250k dead, your other stat was wrong, 25k is a recent number which is still not accepted, just a theory at this point)
Damian: “Indeed, the firebombings of Dresden and Hamburg, as well as the violent acts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were heroic. Who is really to blame for such horrific acts…well, thats simple, the perpetrators were. Japan and Germany should have never engaged in such immoral acts. We had the moral right to retaliate after Pearl Harbor and end the war with our might. It could have not been done more peacefully.”
Seriously? If America starts an unjust/stupid war (say, under Obama, and it was a war you were wholly against), and they do a preemtive strike against a MILITARY target, that gives license for the attacked country to kill as many Americans as they want? It’s like that, except more so, since the leader of Japan was an Emperor, unelected.

And it is a popular misconception that the Japanese refused to surrender after the first atomic bomb hit; they were given almost no time, and didn’t refuse to surrender, just hadn’t responded with an unconditional surrender (which was all the U.S. would accept). In fact, key advisers to the President told him that it was likely that they would surrender. And as for diplomacy not cutting it, I agree that for a long time, diplomacy wouldn’t have worked. However, saying diplomacy failed when the U.S. wanted an unconditional surrender (something that advisors thought very unlikely to be accepted, because of the ingrained “honor” in Japanese culture) is not being truthful. The Japanese actually offered to surrender, but with conditions (fairly unfair ones, including keeping Korea, but it could have been negotiated). Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians (even if said civilians would violently resist a home invasion, as most Americans would) should not have been the answer. We could have very easily tried more diplomacy. Or waited more than 48 hours to drop the second bomb. It’s not like there was THAT much of a rush.
Back to philip: “Is there a choice 4?” Yes. Find out what caused the altercation in the first place, and resolve THAT. In fifth grade they call it conflict mediation. With countries it’s called diplomacy. There’s also a fifth, much less popular option than the others: turn the other cheek. Aka, ignore the grievance of, say, an attacked ship to maintain peace. Not giving in, but refusing to escalate the situation.

On a side note to all blaming the Japanese (I do too, their conquest of much of asia can only be called evil), the fact is that the U.S. had emposed an embargo on Japan, and that many advisers had advised the President that this embargo, coupled with the American media’s clamboring for action, would mean that, if the Japanese were (militarily) smart, they would carry out a preemtive strike. It was certainly not unexpected (although the fact that it was in Pearl Harbor, seemingly too far away for attackers to reach, was surprising). To equate this with Hiroshima and Nagasaki seems ludicrous.

Oh and I saw this one just now: “This is straw man crap here: “Sure there were liberals who thought that Bush’s laws were turning the country into a dictatorship, but I’d bet that you two (philip and damian) looked down on that. So don’t sink to that level. “—I never said anything of the sort.” I didn’t say you did. I said “I’d BET that you tow looked down on [liberals who thought that Bush’s laws were turning the country into a dictatorship].” Would I lose that bet? And even if I would, would you like to be on that level? still seems like a bad place to be if you ask me….

As for “I notice Ha, you never say a harsh word about Stalin, the brutality and mass murders committed by him and his followers Ho Chi Mien, Mao, Castro, etc. and the enslavement of more than 1 billion people,” when would I? I haven’t said anything about them, period. For the record, however, it is my opinion that Stalin was one of the worst dictators ever, and certainly he is not an idol of mine or anything of the sort. As for “his followers” being Ho Chi Mien, Mao, and Castro, I’m sorry that you see the world in such black and white terms. China and the USSR were enemies, and Stalin’s type of Communist was unlike those of the leaders you mentioned. There is a very big difference between China’s peasant communism and the USSR’s factory worker communism. As for Castro and Mien, freedom fighters are in a different league altogether from dictators who worked their way up in an existing system. Out of the four, I would say I strongly dislike/hate Mao (the post-revolutionary power hungry wacko, not the young idealist who fought for his people) and Stalin, slightly dislike Castro (dislike for the fact that it is a dictatorship, but not too strong because it is a fairly benevolent dictatorship as dictatorships go, and there are some things that Castro does quite well, such as healthcare and producing food when his country is so cut off and poor), and don’t have a problem with Ho Chi Mien, but don’t know too much about him, except that he was always courteous and willing to talk it out with the U.S. during the Vietnam War, despite the rape of his people and land.

As for, “Radio free Europe, yes I heard of it, was created in 1948 to bring news, not culture to the nations enslaved by Stalin. Radio Free where-ever still does this.” While it also brought news, it had a secondary function of culture. Read the book the Cultural Cold War to learn more (decidedly pro-American, I’m not telling you to go read some commie book). The fact was, disinformation was spread in Eastern Europe (and probably all of the USSR), giving the common people the idea that the West was basically a monoculture.

“You have not given your view of why a presidential candidate would announce that he would create a “national security force…” or what security goals.” I actually have, I’ve dismissed it as him trying to sound tough on security, something Dems are viewed as being soft on. When I say, “you haven’t answered my main points,” and then you say, “You haven’t answered MY main points,” (paraphrasing, obviously) seems kinda pointless. However, I asked first. I’ll respond to your points if you respond to mine (although to my knowledge there aren’t any main points of yours I haven’t responded to…)

Ha: “If America starts an unjust/stupid war (say, under Obama, and it was a war you were wholly against), and they do a preemtive strike against a MILITARY target, that gives license for the attacked country to kill as many Americans as they want?”

Yes, terrorist attacks such as 9/11 would be justified by the same logic. I don’t believe many of the folks who justify civilian bombing in World War II would be willing to go there.

Unfortunately yes summerspeaker, thats why war is the worst form of human conflict. If the world respected individual rights, it could never happen.

And in the view of the most devote muslims, 9/11 was justifiable. As an anarchist, to be consistent, you can only agree.

OK Ha, below took me a little time to think about so I hope that you will repond.

Understand that I am against the war in Iraq, and Afghanistan. Why? Because it is nationbuilding. Nationbuilding does nothing but sacrifice American lives for the betterment of societies without any concept of individual rights. It is not the moral obligation, as Bush has concieved, for the US to establish “democracy” in the middle east.

I was justifiably angry about the attacks on 9/11 for Islamic fundamentalism has declared open war with the U.S. for decades—not just our military or leadership, but our citizens. The most recent case in point, the 3 students captured and charged with espionage. Their crime? Hiking across the border into Iran in the Kurdistan mountain range. Is it all a show by Iran to pretend to have compassion? (How strategic!) Or will Iran charge them with spying with a penalty of hanging?

The U.S. is the first country to repect individual rights and write them into law. Laws that allow people to live freely and without physical coercion, everything that we achieveis suppoed to be based on the power of their minds—the roots of capitalism.

Say what you must about the founding fathers but honestly, their vision was brilliant. Its too bad that many Americans do not understand that vision. Rather they go with what “feels” right, i.e. we must force all americans into nationalized healthcare—regardless if they want it or not.

I’m glad that we agree on Mideast intervention by the U.S. How do you feel about Vietnam? Just wondering, since they seem like similar situations.
What say you to the first paragraph of my second post? Sorry they were so long, I hadn’t posted for a while and so wrote a bit too much.

Oh one last thing Ha,

In Cuba, what you see in the movies is not what their medicine is like. There is a whole entire ugly side to it. Trust me, I have seen it first hand.

I volunteered with Heal the Children years ago where we did operations on kids in cental american countries (Guatemala). The Guatemalan government sent us, as a thank you, on a trip to Cuba for a scuba vacation. Cuba was a great place but for many reasons, transformed my socialist radicalism into exactly the opposite. Why do you think that they jump on boats to come here?

Summerspeaker, I’m pretty sure that you are agreeing with me, but you don’t say so out and out. Is that what you are saying? That you agree that Pearl Harbor isn’t an excuse for the bomb drops? I also think it pertinent that (while I lament the death of soldiers as well as civilians) the men who died in Pearl Harbor DID sign up for the war, while the civilians in Japan did not.

No thanks, Damian. I don’t support atrocities, be they 9/11 or Hiroshima.

I’ve also heard the opposite of what you describe. I’m not saying it’s all as good as shown in SICKO (which is what I assume you are referring to), but from the account of a Cuban I met in Mexico, it isn’t bad, especially when you consider the state of Cuba (e.g. lead by a dictator, embargoed, devoid of many resources, living off subsistence farming, usually lead to much worse situations than those in Cuba).
Also, for an example of communism that actually didn’t result in a dictatorship, and helped a third world state in india achieve first world stats in infant mortality, size of family, education, etc. look up Kerala. I read about it in Hope, Human and Wild, but I’m sure there’s other info on it. The point is, although is pretty much every other instance the ideals of communism have been taken advantage of by a dictator, there is one instance of it working. I guess that’s to Phillip Howell as well, because you were naming all sorts of communist dictators.

It is interesting how some have taken this from a discussion of FOX News and the attempts by Obama to discredit them to attacking the decisions made 55 years ago during WWII by Roosevelt and Truman. And when faced with the absolute savagery of Stalin, Mao, Castro and others who live Marks-Engels-Lenin communism, they never say those were/are horribly violent men who should be denounced with a loud voice as we denounce Hitler. Stalin and Mao murdered 100 million. They like the 3 million who died in the Killing Fields of Cambodia are ignored; after all it was just dictators who were not good dictators who did that.

Ha says, “[I] slightly dislike Castro (dislike for the fact that it is a dictatorship, but not too strong because it is a fairly benevolent dictatorship as dictatorships go…” Benevolent?? Ask the families of the thousands executed by Castro firing squads, the gay men imprisoned because they are……GAY and may spread AIDS, those who died at sea fleeing the brutal dictator, his brother and their henchmen. The Caribbean spared Castro the need to build a Berlin type wall and have soldiers shoot in the back those who so craved freedom, they were willing to give their life rather than accept his slavery. Those brave people sort of remind me of those words of Patrick Henry: “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

No we do not hear denunciation of such evil men, rather we are told bombing German and Japanese cities to end a war, rather than use diplomacy, is somehow wrong. Had the war in Europe turned by 1943, NO. Did it really turn before June 6, 1944? Probably; but it was far from over that is why it took another 11 months. Taking island after island in the Pacific was necessary to give us the bases to bomb Japan until they surrendered was no different than the bombing in Europe: a necessity to achieve the goal of ending the war and reign of evil men.

What about diplomacy suggest Ha, give Japan the time to surrender after the Hiroshima bombing. BTY Ha, your “…Or waited more than 48 hours to drop the second bomb. It’s not like there was THAT much of a rush” is incorrect, Nagasaki was bombed 76 hours after AND they still did not surrender until August 15, 6 days later.

What would be the point of accepting anything but an unconditional surrender from Germany and Japan? History tells us the demands Japan made for them to surrender were not good for the Koreans and others and brutal murderers would have escaped the hang mans noose. We have a post WWII example of a truce given to a ruthless invader: North Korea. That war still goes on. South Koreans die, the people of the north are brutalized, starved, murdered. Ike understood we gave freedom to the people of Germany that we did not turn over to the Russians; a freedom they enjoy today. Ike sold out the people of North Korea, betrayed the 50,000 Americans who died defending our ally and friend South Korea by not ending that war as he ended WWII: With Total victory.

Summerspeaker and Ha, it is OK to not fight for your life, I just have a hard time when you sacrifice others instead.

FOX news last night did a neat 2 minute tribute to Sesame Street. Then in commentary they had people who have read the House medical bill explain why young people will pay significantly higher medical insurance premiums than they now pay and will pay those premiums or be fined and in one version of the bill be subject to jail time. Who would have imagined when they pulled the lever for Obama they were casting a vote for jail time because they do not want to buy insurance! Did I miss that story on MSNBC or CNN?

Anyone who thinks Fox News is real journalism only need rent the documentary Outfoxed.

Mr. Howell,

You got your facts wrong again:

“We have a post WWII example of a truce given to a ruthless invader: North Korea. That war still goes on.”

There was no truce in the Korean conflict, but only a cease-fire. That’s right, a 56 year long cease-fire. There is a difference between a truce and a cease-fire. Look it up.

“Ike sold out the people of North Korea, betrayed the 50,000 Americans who died defending our ally and friend South Korea by not ending that war as he ended WWII: With Total victory.”

You’re blaming Eisenhower for the outcome? As a right-winger, I’m surprised you’re not using Harry Truman as the punching bag; that’s who the hawks blamed back then.

Ever read anything, or watched any documentaries on the Korean War? Pretty tough war; with the highest casualty rate of all U.S. foreign conflicts. The best the commander-in-chief could do to stop the carnage was a cease-fire.

Your analogy of Korea to WWII is seriously flawed, Howell. What was the big difference between the two, hmmmm. I’ll check back here tomorrow to see if you can come up with it.

Can I answer for Phillip?
I’ll let him give it a shot first, I guess.
Phillip, your “logic” fails. On your first paragraph, the rant on Castro, I’ll repeat, “he is FAIRLY benevolent as dictators go.” There have been far more brutal dictators supported by the U.S. because they are key allies, or allow our companies to run amok in their land. For this reason, I choose not to blast castro every chance I get, because he is being blasted a lot more than these other dictators, and we need to focus on them as well. Which leads me to my main rebuttal to your implicit accusation that I “like” to talk about the evil acts of the U.S. more than the evil acts of communist dictators. “No we do not hear denunciation of such evil men, rather we are told bombing German and Japanese cities to end a war, rather than use diplomacy, is somehow wrong.” I don’t need to tell anyone how evil these men were. What in the world would be the point?? The popular opinion is already heavily against them; I don’t need to convince anyone of their evil nature. However, as made obvious by this whole conversation, there are MANY who do not think that the killing of those civilians was wrong. Which is why I focus on that.
It would follow your logic if I was to ask why you do not spend your time denouncing the evil of, say, Mussolini. There is no point; most are already against him, and he is unrelated to the points you are trying to make. The same goes for your grouping of communist dictators.
So stop trying to accuse me in hopes of finding me to have views so radical that you can dismiss my valid, clearly stated points. Instead, please answer them, in a valid, clearly stated way.

While i am definitely not worried about Philip being able to defend himself, as he and I have ruthlessly argued on abortion. Being 65 years old and well read, I believe he has a clearer undrstanding of U.S. history than I do (obviously not not as clear as yours). However, you are nit-picking about the difference between a truce and a cease-fire, this is symantic bs, at its best—you fellas should know that, and understand that it is kind of weak in argument.

Another point is that Philip does not, as most rationalists do, look at what political party someone is affilited with before formulating an opinion about them—its called reasoning and standing on principle, when you understand the roots of your philosophy, you can argue them to the end (unlike people like, say, summerspeaker whom claims to be an anarchist but can’t uphold its philosophy).

While Philip and I disagree on numerous things I think that a lesson can be learned from his principled stands on every issue. If you only can attack the man without providing evidence, other than “it is not so”, it really just reinforces his statements, because there is no real evidence to to the contrary.

Point specifically to the “lies”, then offer a better solution, if you do…you will win over the argument. Poly Sci 101

Am I nitpicking? You only referred to something Lawrence said, and then said “you fellas.” And you have still not addressed MY main points, so “Point specifically to the “lies”, then offer a better solution.”
While Phillip may be “65 and well-read,” he seems to only be informed on one side of things. I find that to make an informed decision, one needs to know the other side of his/her position. I do know the other side, because my view of history is very different from the mainstream one, and it is hard NOT to know that side of things. However, I personally go even further, and I will say this for myself. “I am 18 and read history all the time -including history written from a perspective that is very different from my own.”
I’ll take that over 65 and well-read any day.

Oh and one more thing damian.
I’ve tried your strategy of “Point specifically to the “lies”, then offer a better solution, if you do…you will win over the argument.” What did I get from you?
“I have a hard time believing that there was repect for private property between tribes. I think that it would be difficult to get any historian scholar to believe that.

Anyhow, its been fun, and I think that it is exhausted. Thanks for the challenge and thoughtful points.” —Damian, on “Columbus Day Opponents Push Alternative Holiday” to Arawak, which is me.

Doesn’t seem like a winning strategy…

MY view of history is different from the mainstream one…what the hell does that mean? That you view history differently than what it really is?

It doesn’t surprise me that you post under so many unique names, it must be difficult to keep consistency in your shoes therefore hiding is easier.

In those posts I clearly exposed you as being a racist (multiculturalism) and proving how you were distorting history (i.e. Columbus killed thousands of native americans) , ANd you clearly embrace the latter in the above statement. What do I have to gain from you? Besides exposing your blind faith to ridiculous aforementioned ideologies? Your leftist philosophy is poorly structured and I could (and have) done a better job at it, sorry, but its the truth.

HOwever, I like you, a word of advice—Try understanding the roots to your philosophy first rather than leading with emotion. Read Karl Marx, Noah Chomsky, Frederick Nietzche, and above all Immanuel Kant. If you really want to destroy any opposition, stay consistent, and embrace liberty, read Ayn Rand.

Ha,

You are impressive as an 18 year old, keep it up my friend, it will take you places :)

Damian, you didn’t “expose me as racist.” Refer to the thread in question, anyone who wants proof of what I say. Which races, exactly, are the subjects of my racism?
Columbus did kill thousands of Native Americans, if not himself, then on his orders. There is proof of this, and I gave it —that you did not follow up on my sources and (try to) discredit them is not my fault— so it’s a bad example for you to use when claiming that I was distorting history.
Thanks for the authors. Most of em are already on my reading list (which has gotten quite out of control), but sure, I’ll ad Nietzche and Kant onto there.
“MY view of history is different from the mainstream one…what the hell does that mean? That you view history differently than what it really is?” I don’t get how you derive that from what I said. My point is that the mainstream (in America) conception of history is very different from my own, case in point: the whole discussion about Columbus, and the fact that most do not view him as bad in any way. Historical fact and public opinion/teaching of history differ greatly. Surely you know this? The point I was making is that Phillip Howell was saying things from the same point of view as you will find in most history textbooks (or at least all the public school textbooks I’ve read), and that I was coming from the other side. e.g. While he may have more total info on history, I have a wider range of info, because I read both his side (the mainstream side) and my own version, and other alternate versions. I was trying to point out that being “well-read” on history doesn’t mean having read a wide range of viewpoints on history. There are enough books on the subject for someone to read enough to be well read, but not read enough to see both sides of the story.
Also, I will readily admit that there are both sides, for example I have already deplored Stalin and Mao, while he has NOT deplored the bombing of Japanese/German cities. I am trying to state a dislike of bombing cities, Phillip changing the subject back to the atrocities of others, which I have already agreed with him on.
Which is incorporating both sides of a story?

And as for my different names, that is a result of my being a nerd, and, when starting posting, was (childishly, I’m sure) thinking it would be fun to post with “witty” names for each topic.
I was/am Arawak when talking about the Arawaks columbus killed, Pasteur when talking about healthcare (I know, really crappy one, but all I could think of at the time related to medicine), Hound when talking about Fox news (obviously changed to ha after I was laughing at that post of Thomas Sowell’s), AJB when I can’t think of anything (my initials), and.. atheist and pro-choice, on theology in the classroom and abortion, respectively.
I’m sorry that you find this dishonest. I find it slightly fun, and I assure you that you will be able to tell if it’s me. If you really want to know but can’t tell, just ask if it’s AJB, I’ll be more than happy to answer yes if it is.
It really shouldn’t matter, since if I had a regular name, and wanted to post inconsistencies, I could just post under a made-up name, like “Jon Smith” or something similar.

Thank you for the praise. Most of the time you present things in a logical way, and command a good knowledge of facts, making you a formidable opponent. Hopefully mutual respect will lead to a heightened quality of postings; perhaps the crazy, disjointed posts of the majority of posters will become frowned upon by all (even those in agreement with said idiots), and discussion will become more logically-and-intellectually based, instead of the 99% screaming WRITERS IN CAPS ABOUT anything ranging from mistreatment of indians to obama takeovers that it is now.
I’ve already expressed this feeling, and told people who I agree with that they are going about it the wrong way. Do you share this dislike of all “trolls?”

How I am failing to uphold anarchism, Damian?

OK Ha, but don’t think that I’m going to be nice to you.

Summerspeaker, what would you describe as the core of your anarchist philosophy? I can explain mine…“every man has a right to his own life”—there all rights extend from that principle. That will include my atheism, pro-abortion, anti-heterosexual “special privilages”, anti-nation building (as applied to Iraq and Afganhistan, pro-capitalism, pro-science, pro-reason and minimal government. Every single one of these issues is extended from my core philosophy, which I can be about 99% consistent on.

I don’t know what trolls are.

And I personally like to know who everyone is.

I use this forum to test my ideas then I use them if they are upholding. They have been put into the ABQ journal, the minneapolis star tribune and numerous other radio shows. I chose UNM because I went to school there.

“trolls” are form-dweller speak for people who don’t understand the topic, but use the thread to basically make an incoherent post (usually with caps and/or horrible spelling/grammar). That’s what I meant by it at least.
I don’t want you to be nice to me. I want you to respond to my points.

Ha, thanks for the important piece of information… your age. It is great to be 18! At that age (50 years ago for me) I was so full of myself I could not get my shoes on…AND that is OK! Your interest and passion for events past and present, places you in that small percentage of people who will make an impact. Your Mea Culpa for using different names for postings indicates an ability to see an error, accept it, move on AND most important to learn from it. You are ahead of that curve of development (documented in studies that I will not cite for brevity) that demonstrates we males do not hit our adult maturity until the age of 23-25. I believe they missed mine by 10 or 20 years. Ha, I trust you take my comment as intended: a recognition of the perspective of a young man and a complement.

Damien, thank you for your kind words and clarifying my misuse of a word. It is cease-fire not truce, all of the rest is hard fact Lawrence.

I worked to elect JFK although I was too young to vote. I believed then and now he was a good man, his peccadillos not withstanding. In this I disagree with Ross Perot. I believe they are not important unless the woman/man on their knees are looking at important stuff on the desk. JFK pushed through tax cuts that grew jobs, that grew the tax income of this nation. He was wrong getting us involved in Nam and not standing fast on ICBM’s in Cuba He should have told Russia they will not be allowed. He never should have given away our espionage bases in Turkey and pledged that we would not invade Cuba. At the end I will share a thought I hope is useful and information about life and death decisions the govt is already empowered to make.

To both you and Lawrence I encourage you to reject party absolute, to accept that good ideas are not post-it-notes that only stick to a party label. Bingham, who I intensely dislike, has advanced legislation to stabilize our banking system. Domenici and Wilson, whose campaigns I worked on, were absolutely wrong supporting the $400/million for Richardson’s toy train and the $1million for a study of a trolley system that Marty wanted. Those three join the others who have worked to send good paying jobs and money to our natural enemies: the other oil producing nations.

WE MUST HAVE fossil fuel energy until we construct sufficient nuclear power plants to meet the needs of our nation. If we covered all of Texas with windmills and solar we could supply a few percent of our energy needs. That is simple math, google the many brilliant people whose studies clearly show this truth, ignore those who “feel” nuke is wrong. All the worry stuff of the “greens” ignores reality. We will change the environment because we are humans. Unlike monkeys we have an intellect that demands we live better than in a tree, picking wild fruit. A steak, properly cooked, tastes better than a banana, unless you cover that banana with fine ice cream, syrup made from fruit and the other fixings- just hold the red thing please- all of which use energy to make and deliver to the ice cream store. The question for the “greens” is simple: Want to live like a monkey or debate the important issues with an adult beverage in your hand? That coffee came from Columbia, the sugar from Louisiana, the moo stuff from Belen and a dairy plant in SE Albuquerque. Energy consuming! I support hypocrite Don Schrader railing we should live in a cave-he lives in an apartment- BUT he is a hypocrite for riding buses, using electricity to keep his food from spoiling, pumped water and soap to bathe, electricity and the net to post his letters in the Lobo. Those luxuries are not found in caves, they are found in the homes of the greens.

My point is this: When someone demands you stop doing something, ask if they are willing to join you in doing what they demand of you. Then as Regan said, “Trust but verify.”

This blog started in response to a letter congratulating the Lobo voters for giving a thumbs down on FOX news. It’s meanderings are OK; after all this is a university publication and all of us are talking with adult beverages handy. While I am writing these profound thoughts (just ask me if I believe that to be true!) Neil Cavuto was interviewing someone discussing economic projections and Beck has just showed the tape of Pelosi not answering the question of a reporter who wanted to know if people refuse to buy health insurance can they be sent to jail. 4 times she bobbed and ducked like Mohamed Ali, never answering the question. The answer is YES. Then Beck showed the section in the already passed Stimulus Bill that empowers the U.S. Government to determine if a given health treatment is COST EFFECTIVE. If YES it is provided, if NO it is not given. I wonder how many of those little babies in the NICU at UNMMC will have their plug pulled because someone in Kansas decides the treatment is not cost effective?

Lawrence, Ah, if that was your little baby brother or sister in the NICU or ICU, and your family was told sorry that treatment is not allowed because it is not cost effective, would you say to Udall, Bingham, Heinrich, “good job for passing that bill and thanks Obama for signing it?”
The kind words of the chaplain will not give life back to your brother or sister, nor will the well intended acts of Udall, etc. You have no idea- unless it has happened to you- of the pain you experience when your child dies. And to know a child dies because of a government mandate to save money is unimaginable to me; it is not the America I was born into in 1941.

Only FOX is giving us these hard facts, letting us know the consequences we will live with because of the actions of people we trust, people who hold our lives in their hands when they are voting.
PS: Ha, you are spot on about Damain.

Phillip:
“And to know a child dies because of a government mandate to save money is unimaginable to me; it is not the America I was born into in 1941.”
What? It seems that you are a bit confused; corporations are the ones with profit as their bottom line. While the government may work to save money, the bottom line for them is public opinion; if a government spends way too much money but is still very popular, it will stay in power here in the U.S. The same is not true for corporations. It is in the corporate system that one is more likely to be denied due to profitability; if the corporation had any policy that lost it money, that policy would go. That is the whole point of corporations.
As for “Only FOX is giving us these hard facts, letting us know the consequences we will live with because of the actions of people we trust, people who hold our lives in their hands when they are voting.” I don’t believe that at all. While I don’t think any media corporation/group/whatever fits those requirements, Fox is one of the furthest. Ask Glenn Beck, who has said himself that he doesn’t check all his facts; that he is an opinion pundit. And for Fox viewers who watch the less opinion-oriented shows, those aren’t the ones that receive the high ratings, and aren’t the ones I’m complaining about.
Phillip, you say you were born in 1941, during the time of the New Deal. While most detractors of the New Deal assert that the real economic recovery came with WWII (which is my belief, if you change the word “real” into “complete.”), there is no denying that the New Deal helped our economy greatly, and still does; I myself worked with a YCC (youth civilian corps) group, it’s a good way to get job experience and help better the nation and environment. Why, then, are you blasting similar reforms today? The New Deal was considered environmental extremism by some, because it hired people to tend to the parks and wilderness areas of the U.S. as well as road repairs, etc. How are “green” incentives so different?
As for renewables not supplying the energy needs of the nation, that is in the completely wrong mindset. We could easily supply our energy needs with even small-scale renewables, if we reduced our use. There is a very big difference between energy needs and energy wants. We don’t NEED that hummer, that pre-packaged food that travelled from china to africa to latin america to the U.S. to your state to your town to your vending machine.
And it’s not a choice between living like apes and living in the society of waste and overconsumption that is present now. There are countless examples of places with equal standards of living coupled with reduced per-capita energy use. And that’s WITH keeping our standards of living. If we reduced so much of that “standard” that is unnecessary (every time one buys a new version of something, a second home, etc.), we could bring it down even further. There is nothing that says that we either must destroy the earth or live like animals.
Anyone with half a brain can tell that we cannot continue on this track. Even if you believe the least dire of predictions about the peak times of resources, population, or destruction of the environment, there is no question that we are (slowly or quickly) destroying the natural world, and that we will run out of resources (be it uranium, oil, steel, or rubber) eventually. Why wait until it becomes a crisis (well, I believe that it is already a crisis; but if you don’t, this logic applies)?
As for Don Schraeder, I know him, have actually gone to his house. (with no hitting on me of any sort, for those of you who think that any interaction between don and a college-age male consists of his sexual advances.) He does not use electricity to keep his food, he eats only raw food, so it’s not a concern. He does use electricity to power his house (which is quite small), but is not in it often (and goes to sleep at 9 every night), so he doesn’t use too much electricity, certainly not more than would be produced by a small solar panel outside his house. He also does NOT ride buses or use computers. As for the pumped water, has he said one shouldn’t use water at all? Or soap (which is probably of the homemade kind, but seeing as neither of us know…)? His “thing” is a reduction in consumption. His personal example is a drastic reduction. But it does not have to be that way. If people consumed even three or four times as much as Don, there’d be enough to go around without destroying the planet.
Personally, I have found it very easy to reduce my consumption by quite a bit; riding my bike two miles to school every day is a lot easier than one would think. Putting on a sweater instead of turning up the heat is as well. Eating less junk food is not so hard either. These things are not only good for the world, they are good for my checkbook and health.

Great post on an important issue, Ha. I’ve only seen Don around town, but that’s given me a positive opinion of him. He always brings wonderful signs to demonstrations.

The New Deal helped economic recovery?? What part?

I’m completely baffled by the lack of description here. It seems that many youth like to regurgitate what they have heard elsewhere without really knowing why and without critical thinking on it. Were is the “fact-checking” here?

TO make a convincing argument, you should not lead with emotion—because it “seems” right or “feels” right does not make it so.

Sorry Ha, but your assessment of the New Deal, whereever you heard it is bs. I’m sure that they cannot provide sufficient information on it either.

I’m asking for one example.

Schrader is a hypocrite, he lives off of his trust fund and is a parasite to the rest of society.

And your perpetual assessment of corporations is close but still is quite naive. Corporate welfare has continued for decades not because of an honest profit, but because of subsidies and political clout. Understand that corporations invest millions into getting laws passed that give them a monopoly on the free market. If you really were concerned about corporate welfare and fixing the problem point to the democrats who are in power now. They fill their pockets with benefits from corporate big-wigs while they pass laws, or amendments to them, that give corporate entities more power. And don’t even make yourself look ignorant by calling it “capitalism” because capitalism is an open and free market, no regulation according to what “feels right”.

Actually, I’ll give you a chance to take the New Deal statement back. But I still really want to know the source of it.

Be careful because I have an arsenal to quite the contrary about the New Deal and how it indeed destroyed the lives of mostly the poor—and the logic is sound.

The evidence has been developed by dozens of economists — including two Nobel Prize winners — at Brown, Columbia, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, the University of California (Berkeley) and University of Chicago, and among other universities. I have researched the topic extensively.

I’m sorry Damian, but I am through with you. I have no need to prove myself to you or slowhike. I don’t know why I thought you had a good command of the facts, or were above the level of most of the hate-filled crap one sees on these forums.
This post, and others (see my response to your remark on the thread on the support center for homosexuals)
What is the point of facts when they can be conveniently denied by “Schrader is a hypocrite, he lives off of his trust fund and is a parasite to the rest of society?”
As for the New Deal, fine, but it is common knowledge, there is really no need to reinforce this. Here we go: “The economy shot upward, with FDR’s first term marking one of the fastest periods of GDP growth in history.” From Time magazine, 1937. Which was not considered at all liberal at the time, by the way.
So there’s an example. In addition to the economic results, there are also the physical improvements I can see everywhere. In my hometown, there are many streets that have been repaved by CCC crews, and bear their mark. Trails have been blazed/repaired as well, with signs declaring them the work of CCC crews. One example? Those were plenty.
And just because I am “youth,” does not mean I regurgitate random facts I have heard somewhere.
I’ve already proven to you, and others, that I am knowledgeable on historical matters. I may not agree with you, but, as I have already said, I read a lot of history, and on both sides of the aisle (including A Patriot’s History of the United States of America, the opposite of Zinn’s famous People’s history). To acknowledge this in one post and later pretend I’m a child who doesn’t know what he is talking about is what’s hypocritical.
Where did I say that we should do something just because it “feels right?” I would think I had said that, seeing as you responded as if I had. But I didn’t, so why did you bring that into the conversation? To try to dismiss my points as based in “feeling right,” so that you would not have to respond to the points themselves.
As for Democrats pocketing money, I don’t know why you think I support Democrats, because I don’t. I like them more than Republicans, but I certainly don’t like them. Of course Democrats get large amounts of money from corporations. Republicans as well. However, at this point Democrats are (in general) more anti-large corporation than Republicans.
Who fought/fights for tax cuts for the leaders of said corporations? Who fought/fights against environmental legislation that would reign in corporation? etc. etc.
The answer: Republicans. Some Democrats as well, obviously. But when talking about generalizations, it is the Republicans who are more pro-corporation.
If you are saying everyone who calls our system “capitalism” is ignorant (“And don’t even make yourself look ignorant by calling it “capitalism” because capitalism is an open and free market”)… then you are ignorant. Our system is not one of pure capitalism, but it is capitalist. We call China Communist, even though it is not a “pure” form of communism. It is still, however, communism. Same goes for the U.S.
There. That’s how a response should be. Not a bunch of vague assertions with a few calls for examples mixed in. You should instead focus upon the content of the post you are responding to.
I, however, am done with you, damian. You refuse to respond to my points of contention, and focus instead upon nitpicking. And, when you have nothing more to say, you declare victory and leave that thread, as in with the Columbus Day discussion.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s fine to say you’ve had enough of a discussion. But don’t do that and then claim to have proven me a racist, closeminded idiot like you did before. If you have nothing more to say, say that instead.

Ha your latest posting has several unrelated matters; I will try to address each in brevity– not my strong suite.

In discussing death due to the government withholding care you attacked corporations rather than speak to the existing legislation that allows-mandates- the government do a “cost-benefit analysis” of treatment. The analysis legislation is real in this country; it mimics what is in place in Canada, the UK and all other nations with government controlled health care. It denies care. My point of the babies in the NICU at UNMMC is very real. TODAY we do not have denial, but the provisions in the Bail Out Bill and in the plans being debated mandate analysis with the intent to only provide care if the analysis is favorable (BTY, this is the same provision that was in Hillary’s bill). That Ha is government mandated approval/disapproval. Doubt me? Call Heinrich and ask his office.

FACT: Canada’s health ministry was ordered by their Supreme Court to provide chemotherapy to women with breast cancer using a drug they refused to approve because of it’s expense. Thousands of Canadian women finally received life saving treatment that had been denied by the government. That drug is routinely used in this country and paid for by insurance companies. In the UK a woman went public when their health ministry denied NICU care for her baby because the baby was 2-3 days too early to be eligible for such care. Babies such as her’s occupy bassinet’s in UNMMC’s NICU and their care is paid for by insurance companies. Doubt me? Talk to the accounting department at the hospital.

Your “denied due to profitability; if the corporation had any…” is not true. Health insurance companies set premiums based on risk That is why we pay the price we do. Same with companies that write fire insurance, flood damage, etc.

“Ask Glenn Beck, who has said himself that he doesn’t check all his facts; that he is an opinion pundit.” say you. I have repeatedly heard Beck say he and his staff triple check their facts. Yes, he is “an opinion pundit” but his facts are not challenged head on with critics showing a fact he offered that has proven to be wrong. You have said you do not watch his show; why are you accepting the words of others as truth? Today he held up the red phone and claimed the administration has not called once to challenge any claim he has made. Obama’s attack on FOX has bombed; only foolish people who do not challenge the Move On lies and distortions think otherwise. Beck appears to defend himself well.
New Deal….
You are mistaken to suggest there was recovery from the Depression before WWII. 2 sources of facts: http://www.bloggybayou.com/2009/07/fdrs-fireside-chat-april-14-1938-new.html FDR describes the failure of his programs in 1938. Listen to the 35 minutes, substitute Obama for FDR in your mind. Hear 2 men with similar problems describe identical solutions. FDR’s were a failure; turned to success only by a war.
Second source: Book and quote by Folsom, Burton W., Jr. In New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America. 4th ed. New York: Threshold Editions, 2008 quoting Henry Morgenthau, Jr., FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury from 1934-1945. “We have tried spending money. We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just none interest, and if I am wrong . . . somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job, I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started . . . . And an enormous debt to boot!” My parents and other extended family lived through that awful time. They talked about having hope when FDR was elected, when he put programs in place that provided jobs. When the money ran out and the make work jobs went away they lost faith in him, they seen the truth.

And a third this of disagreement, Araina Huffington on FOX News in disagreement: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/fox-news-historians-prett_b_153482.html

I am not going to discuss energy use because it depends of many ‘what if’s’ and forcing people to change their life style. It is fine to ride a bike to school or work. Forcing everyone by mandate or placing heavy taxes on energy is forcing your views on me and my Hummer. Aren’t you glad you do not have to pay the gas bill for a Hummer or BMW?

You did not refute the other facts of energy production and availability. I take that as agreement.

I am happy Don is happy. I have never seen him wear a sweater.
Funny thing Ha, this week researchers released their medical studies of a bunch of dead Egyptians. Those people who died thousands of years ago had heart disease, and they died in their 40’s. Modern living has added about 10 years to the life of Americans just in the past 100 years. Hummers replaced horse carts, canned foods over fresh, Big Mac’s and ice cream instead of dates and figs. I think I’ll continue to enjoy Egypt as a tourist rather than live their harsh life.

BTY I am 68.

I told you I wasn’t going to be nice. “Youth” is not a derogatory term, its being young—I wish I were, and I was of the exact same mindset at your age. Anyways, don’t be afraid of me.

Moving forward.

Howard Zinn is a great example of pop-culture revisionist history. Zinn was a great admirer of Karl Marx, so it figures that you get your history from one of the only books that was written solely to meet the idea that socialism is actually a good thing. It pretty much stands on its own and even Zinn knows that. Its unfortuate that you actually believe it to be fact and says a lot about how close minded you may be to what history is all about. Did you know that there are historians that can paint Stalin out to be a saint too?

Interesting that you point to 1937…did you know that there was another great recession that year? Seems that you are misinformed and rather than getting angry at me, try getting some facts straight. And Time is by no means an objective source.

The fact that you point to the CCC paving your road has absolutely nothing to do with economic recovery. Did you know that the CCC did not even exist during WWII? It was shut down prior to it to any recovery. So I have no idea how that can be considered true.

I did not claim that you support democrats. However, tax cuts for corporations is hardly something that attributes to monopolies and power compared to democrats’ support of regulation to help keep out an competition that would break down the corporate entities.

We are a mixed economy. Worldwide economies prosperity is directly related to the amount that they adhere to free markets. Look at Hong Kong, Dubai, along with many others. Do you know how many times the left has been on the wrong side of history?? Numerous. When the Soviet Union fell and the Berlin Wall collapsed, the whole world saw the lies and how malnurioused and horrible life was within East Germany. Cuba, from personal experience, is much the same yet leftists still like to paint a rosey picture—its unbelieveable and quite absurd.

I suggest that if you do care about people rather than obsess about the wealth of “the rich”. That you take a good hard look about the reality and how socialism, communism, egalitarianism and the like, are completely harmful to human health and prosperity. Just look at some of the leaders in their espousal…its not friendly or nice, its vicious, and they hold great contempt and jealousy for “the rich or successful”. (Ever hear a college professor attempt to get the class laugh at those more successful than he?) Zinn is the epitome of this garbage and not very cool. Its sickening really.

As for Republicans and democrats, they are the same. Democrats lead the charge and republicans resort to me-tooing. Thats why we should fight to limit the government and power. They have the monopoly on the use of force, not CEOs and corporations. We do not have to buy their products.

What point did I ever not respond too?? I thought the Columbus disscussion was getting boring, and going in circles, didn’t you?

I will retract the statement about Don. He really is harmless and a little silly, but he still is a hypocrite.

Just heard last night that the Obama administration now officially considers Fox news to be a non-news source. It’s long overdue but I’m glad someone in power finally has the balls to stand up to these frauds.

Many Americans enjoy the commentary from Fox. Its refreshing to see the challenges to such a power hungry and elite set of individuals. Its about time Americans woke up and stand up to these anti-American ideals. For example, if healthcare even passes, much to the same extent of most of the programs of the New Deal, it will be constitutionally challenged and should be eliminated. Government should not have the power to force Americans to buy any product.

Its almost laughable to see 18-29 year olds support these bills when they are the ones who stand to lose the most. Even if they are healthy, they will have to pay for my (although I’m not that old yet) healthcare, whether I smoke, don’t exercise, eat unhealthy…it won’t matter, you little peons will be forced to pay for me and I’ll laugh as I collect my gigantic paycheck.

Its impossible to remain objective in news, impossible.

Us Dems get our talking points directly from this great site! Go to PWW.ORG for their newspaper edition but if you want you can pay a $1 for a real hardcopy from Bobby, the homeless man on the side walk in front of Satellites. Don’t be fooled by the PWW newspaper even though they have no reference or link on the newspaper itself that they are run by the COMMUNIST PARTY USA! NOW GET TO READING BECAUSE TOMORROW THEIR NEWS WILL BE OBAMA’S TALKING POINTS!

Damian –

Of course many Americans enjoy the commentary from Fox. They want to hear jabber that reinforces their own opinions. You’re completely avoiding the main point that Fox is not real journalism. It’s propaghanda.

And I find your statement that the current administration is power hungry to be deeply ironic and hypocritical, especially in light of the Bush administration and their rape and pillage of our Constitutional rights and laws. Of course Obama and his people are power hungry – they wouldn’t be in politics if they weren’t. Of course they see themselves as elites, deep down at least. If you think the Republicans don’t you’re gravely mistaken. Their “grassroots for the people” stance is a hoax, an illusion. Who can’t see they support corporations who step on average people and make the gap between rich and poor ever wider? How laughable that you see Dems voting against their own interest when that is the very thing I’ve always been amazed about Republicans. They always got sidetracked and caught up in abortion issues and gays wanting equal rights while their own party disenfranchised them. That is a deliberate Republican tactic to distract voters from what’s really going on. Suckers!

Once again, I recommend seeing the documentary Outfoxed which can do a lot more to educate you about Fox news than I can here. If you are willing to look at the issue objectively instead of confining your information to right-wing sources, you will plainly see how Rupert Murdock et al. deliberately manipulated the news to serve the right-wing ultra-conservative Republican agenda. They did this with daily memos that dictated strategies straight from the Bush White House and sneaky tactics such as injecting opinion with words like “some people are saying . . .” Maybe pure objectivity really isn’t possible, but we can do a lot better than Fox news. They have done a hell of a lot to corrupt journalism.

Did you know that of about 250 journalists contributing to political campaigns, 235 gave money to Obama and a mere 15 to McCain? Did you know that they out spent the republican donations by a margin of 15:1? (I cannot remember the source but you can google it I’m sure). Think Obama isn’t corrupt? Did you know Leading Democrats, including President Barack Obama, received substantial amounts in campaign donations from the American International Group (AIG) through political action committees and employees in 2008. The insurer, which has received billions in federal bailout money, is facing public outrage over the pay out of $165 million in employee bonuses.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, AIG has contributed more than $9 million to political parties and federal candidates in the last two decades through PACs and individual contributions. Last year, 68 percent of its campaign donations went to Democrats, who won a landslide and took control of both Congress and the White House.

At the top of its list of recipients are two lawmakers responsible for keeping the nation’s finances in order. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, received more donations from AIG than from any other company. He got $91,000 from the insurance giant, with his next largest contributor Goldman Sachs at $87,900.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination last year, got a total of $280,238 from AIG, his fourth-largest contributor. Citigroup Inc. was his top donor at $428,794.

Obama, meanwhile, is fourth on the list of AIG’s top recipients. He received $110,332 in campaign contributions from PACs and individual donations.

Typical politicians.

I have railed against Bush for years. His pitiful expansion of government is far from the principles that conservatives are about. Mouth-pieces like Sean Hannity embarrass themselves with contradiction on a daily basis and real libertarians and principled intellectuals call him on it with reasoning rather than emotion. See Cato.org or AynRand.org.

Obama, however, has not done anything differently than Bush. He supports federal wire-tapping and has actually doubled down on trampling individual rights with his support of Net Neutrality, Healthcare, and on and on.

The true enemy is not conservatism but government. Lame politicians who enjoy our squabbling over a non-principled debate over republicans versus democrats. Its absurd. There will not be any change until we realize that all of this hollywood/American Idol 24-7 news reporting of politicians only induces their power. These politicians are supposed to be our slaves not our masters.

A little copy and pasting above, the top and bottom 3 paragraphs are mine. My source is headline news. I concurr with your assessment about Fox. I just don’t think it is such a threat. We have left leaning News, now that there is some challenge, the left is screaming about it. So what. Its entertainment.

Damian, are you seriously using descriptions such as “left” and “right?”

To say the least, these are loaded, inaccurate and just completely inapplicable descriptions.

And btw, if I were to say that corporate news is “left or right,” I would call it neither. For the most part, corporate “news” simply serves the interests of its owner/shareholders. At the same time, the news has to play a balancing act to show a certain “lone wolf” quality, that “I’m the only one who’s not afraid to show what’s really going on.”

Gee Smiley – thanks ever so much for setting Damian and the rest of us straight on what terms to use and how corporate media functions. We are in awe of your expertise and insight.

I’ll be glad when Obama can muster enough courage to militarize his Democratic militia to physically punish conservtive gatherings like Tea Party’s and Church goers. Maybe a Black group could like ACORN could help with this.

Right.
Just an FYI to anyone stupid enough to believe that the above post was by me, it’s not.

Ha Ha Ha, FYI to anyone stupid enough to believe that the above two posts weren’t written by me, it’s not. Ha

whee

You are welcome

Very good smiley. I can define my terms for you. Ususally “left-leaning” means philosophies that derive from collectivism, egalitarianism, socialism and fascism—most of these share the same basic ideology. “Right” or right-leaning are philosophies embracing limited or no government, that would be anarchy, republics, capitalism and the like—this all is derived from the basic principles of individualism and self-interest.

The left, or collectivism holds that the individual should sacrifice for the group—i.e. “common good”. The right holds that the individual is supreme.

Now there are various levels of confusion with the those associated with the “right” and the “left” such as with religion. Religion, in terms of its philosophic value—just like environmentalism—should all be more associated with the left. Which it is starting to, just observe the shift with their altruistic philosophies.

SO, that being said, philosophic cores tend to be “right leaning” with Fox and “left leaning” with most other news outlets.

Proof to this can be found in early writings such as the New York Times and Time. They have many articles and leading journalists that rationalized and sympathized with Hiter and National Socialism, other sympathizers were with E. Germany and Communist Russia. Well…we all eventually saw how wrong they were. Yet the left just doesn’t seem to care how many time they are proven wrong. They still continue with their failed concepts.

Now we can nit-pick all day. It doesn’t prove anything really but that you can’t win on the overall argument so you resort to details that are quite shady. And you don’t define your terms either.

There, consider yourself one step more educated—and it was free!

Actually,

I reread your post and did not address a few other points. You are right about it serving its owner and shareholders—which, in order to survive, they have to find a niche in the market. Fox does this by advocating the “right-leaning” philosophies and that is what makes them successful. So your assessment that they are neutral is false, and I think you know that.

Its ok, I don’t expect a response but was glad to help your confused logic.

Damian –

It’s ridiculous to claim the left, the “liberal” group, adheres to fascism. Certainly not today. It may have applied in some ways at one time, but these are superficial labels and you would probably agree that life is more complicated than that.

I had no problem with you pointing out the disgusting contributions Democrats receive. There needs to be some way of removing money from politics. Lobbyists should be banned. I realize there’s a freedom of speech issue, but money controls our government way too much. As modern communication advances, it should be removed from the system altogether. Obama is corrupt. He should’ve allowed the power houses to fail. That’s REAL capitalism. And on a side note, Democrat Baucus is blocking health care reform.

As for journalists contributing far more to Dems than the GOP, that only seems natural. These people have the advantage of knowing what’s really going on in this country, far more than the average citizen. Dems and Repubs may form a two-headed monster but I’ll take a Democrat any day – the lesser of two evils. It’s the same reason who so many college students learn to think for themselves and grow to reject deity-based religion. Knowledge is power.

Besides, it’s rare for any two sides of an issue to measure up equally. There is always going to be a side that comes out on top and it will always provide an opportunity for those who agree with the losing side to complain.

Yes, I concur Rich, well, with most of it.

First, I would not use wiki to explain fascism, its so inaccurate and contradictory that it is absurd.

Fascism has such an attachment to Nazi Germany that many, maybe not you, run away from trying to understand what it really is. If you read Mein Kampf or read any of the speeches by Mussoulini, you may get what I am talking about (and you probably have). If one were to look through the eyes of many Germans at the time, they were in love with Hitler, not because of his adhesion to eugenics or his authoritarian nature, but because he made sense. Germany wanted more “unity” and a strong nationalistic policy. They were willng to surrender all ideas of individuality and differences for a strong cohesion between the collective. They were willing to allow a strong centralized power over their society. This, I argue, is by far more parallel to that of communism and socialism than it is of limited government.

You are right, many or even most liberal progressives see the importance of liberty over strong control and nationalism. But when it comes to healthcare, environment, and capitalism, they abandon this principle for the “common good”. This is where they believe government is needed to help, force, individuals into their belief system.

If you are going to sacrifice your principles for democrats—how far are you willing to take that? The right (or principled conservatism) says that governemnt should allow people to be unique individuals, its on religion where they contradict themselves. The left advocates an elite over the lives of the “ignorant”—just look at their arrogant behavior.

I would say both sides display arrogant behavior. Imposing what one considers to be best for the country on the masses could hardly be otherwise. And both sides are guilty of not adhering to their principles. I think you would agree that Bush Jr.‘s rampant expansion of governement flew in the face of conservatism.

As for fascism I guess it was, like communism, quite different in practice than it was on paper.

P.S. – maybe we’d get less BS around here if people had to type in the last name of the 23rd president instead of the 1rst!

Rich, please reconsider your, “[Journalists] have the advantage of knowing what’s really going on in this country, far more than the average citizen.” is why you trust them!
The NY Times in the 1930’s had Moscow based reporters writing stories about the brutality, the murders committed by Stalin. Never made the pages of the paper. Same of those who listened to Hitler and learned who his advisors were, what they believed.
Only the Libertarian press reported Obama’s comments on 07/02/08 when he said he will create a “national security force…” although all of the media were there.
Where have you read or heard of the provision in the Bail Out bill that requires the creation of a “Cost Benefit Analysis Review Board” for medical care? Interpret that to mean Death Panels. Or how much more workers under the age of 50 will pay to subsidize the old people or the financial windfall AARP will receive if the horror becomes law?

Rick, only the Libertarian people and some conservative people are giving you these facts. My brother also used to say “knowledge is power.” Wrong! Understood and applied knowledge is power if you convenience someone who is doing something contrary to that knowledge to change.

Mr. Howell:

Well, I never got a response from you on my question to you, where you compared the Korean War to World War II:

“Ike sold out the people of North Korea, betrayed the 50,000 Americans who died defending our ally and friend South Korea by not ending that war as he ended WWII: With Total victory.”

Here are differences between the Korean War and WWII, simply put:

World War II, Germany: by spring 1945 they were finished; Hitler orders the drafting of boys and old men to defend Berlin. Germany is surrounded; huge armies closing in from the east, west, and south. All allies save for Japan defeated.

World War II, Japan: On the retreat by the summer of 1945 and close to defeat. No allies after the surrender of Germany. Like Germany, ready to resort to civilian defense in case of invasion. Japan vowed to “never surrender” but many historians say that the emperor’s government was ready to surrender, especially after the Soviet declaration of war against them.

World War II, U.S.: Only country with a weapon of mass destruction.

Contrast to:

Korea: North Korean armies had powerful allies: China and the Soviet Union. The Soviets by 1950 also have weapons of mass destruction. The tables all almost completely turned.

A simplistic analogy, to be sure. But how are WWII and Korea comparable, Howell? By “total victory” do you mean unconditional surrender on the part of the North Koreans AND their allies, China and the USSR? Truman or Eisenhower were supposed to “nuke” North Korea, or China? What would then stop the Soviets from bombing us? You seem to argue that we should have initiated WWIII – a nuclear war.

It’s terrible that the people of North Korea continue to suffer under one of the worst dictatorships in the world. It was a moral dilemma for Truman and Ike – an uneasy cease-fire, or a nuclear war. I think they chose correctly.

“What would be the point of accepting anything but an unconditional surrender from Germany and Japan?”

Thousands of lives saved? Oh well, millions had already died, what’s a million more.

One more question on ethics for you: how do you reconcile your rather hawkish stance expressed here with your views on abortion that you gave in the “more care shown for unborn than those alive and suffering” thread?

“I oppose abortion for humane reasons. Other than as a needed defense I oppose killing, believing all life is important, therefore worthy of our efforts to defend each person against harm.”

Mr. Howell,

At the risk of making an ad hominem argument, which you claim to abhor, I must point out that no less than three times in this thread you refer to a “Bingham.”

Are you referring to Sen. Jeff Bingaman?

http://bingaman.senate.gov/

Once is a typo; I produce my fair share when I type quickly. But three times? You don’t know the name of our senior senator.

Why do I bring this up? In your many posts, you use of a tone of (pseudo)intellectual discourse, and you regularly admonish me and others to use a higher level of argument, and also remind people that this is a university newspaper. You refer to a level of “intellect.”

I agree. How do you then expect to be taken seriously when you can’t even spell the name of our senior senator?

Lawrence, until the onset of puberty I frequently earned awards in both spelling and math drills. Puberty came and my brain went, has not come back. I am unable to balance a check book and occasionally misspell repeatedly a name until someone helps me see the error of my way. Thanks for your help. Bingaman, hmmn You said, “How do you then expect to be taken seriously when you can’t even spell the name of our senior senator?” I will leave it to others to decide.

Your point regarding the differences between WWII and Korea are mostly accurate. Two corrections: Russia declared war on Japan after we bombed Hiroshima, not to help us win the won war but for territorial expansion; they took Point Arthur, Truman said nothing. When Emperor Hirohito ordered the military government to surrender they tried to assassinate him; surrender was not in play until he directly told the people of Japan the war was over after the bombing of Nagasaki.

While Russia had nuclear weapons in 1950 she lacked the means of delivery to our country and with the decided advantage we had in bombers to deliver our numerical superiority of such bombs, had Stalin used nukes in Europe in retaliation for our aggressive acts to win in Korea, we could have punished Russia far more than she could have punished Europe. Of course, it would have been a Pyrrhic victory. The same is true had we used nukes in Korea.

I believe HST was right in not allowing the bombing of the Yalu River bridges. Mao could not be stopped without atomic bombs if he chose to commit the millions of soldiers he was willing to lose as the only way to stop them would have been nuclear bombing. Ike’s mistake in the campaign was to announce ‘if elected, I will travel to Korea to end this war.’ Tell your enemy that– as we did in Nam– and you are telling him he has won. Communism won and the millions of people born in North Korea since then have suffered and died under the iron fist rule of a lunatic and his son. We condemned those people to the horror they live.

The question for historians- I am not one- is what if. What if HST gave Ike orders to take every mile possible instead of standing down and allowing the Russians to take half of Germany or he ordered tanks to be driven to Berlin instead of the airlift? Would we have had Korea? I believe weakness gives bullies courage. HST gave it to them and so did Ike because they would not fight for what was right.

You are an educated man Lawrence. You know the known history of mankind is filled with violence, violence that is always worse when you give psychotic leaders the tact approval to commit their evil deeds. Not being aggressive against Stalin when he was weak told him he could nibble away as he did. What message did Chamberlain give Hitler? And the result was….

The “unconditional surrender from Germany and Japan?” was FDR’s policy, it became HST’s.

You raise my position in opposition to abortion in this discussion with this statement of mine. “I oppose abortion for humane reasons. Other than as a needed defense I oppose killing, believing all life is important, therefore worthy of our efforts to defend each person against harm.” I am puzzled as I know of no harm an unborn baby has or can commit. They are the innocent dead.

You refer to my “hawkish stance” against leaders of nations who will or do commit violent acts against others in the context to my opposition to abortion. Do you really see killing 1.250/million babies in abortion is the same as killing the soldiers of a nation that attacks you or commits atrocities against others? I thought this issue of defense against evil people was settled when Michael Dukakis was asked the question during the campaign. I care if you will not defend your family against evil people because that evil person is still free to harm my family. Profoundly evil people have demonstrated who they are and must be forcibly stopped.

Hi Philip,

If it is worth anything—I enjoy your history lessons during my lunch hour and visiting the Daily Lobo.

It looks like you may be asking too much of university students when you ask that they look at history through an objective lens rather than Howard Zinn and the like.

I believe that students deserve the challenge to their pseudo-intellectual professors, these professors are the culprit of the revisionist history and many more are starting to realize it.

The popular take is to start with the so-called alternative idea of moral equivalence then rationalize from there. Its unscientific, they get so wrapped up in their hypothesis that it can never be proven wrong.

Damian, thanks for your kind words. I encourage people to read the speeches of Patrick Henry, aloud, slowly at first, just a sentence or two between deep breaths and then to see in your minds eye this man laying out issue by issue the injustices committed by the king and his minions.
Read his 1765 speech given as a freshman Burgess (legislator) as it must have been given while some muttered no, NO and others shouted TREASON!!! Read it with the passionate love this courageous man had for freedom.

Then came 1775 and that great speech that defined the character of all man. How thunderstruck many were when he offered his life with those words, that thought, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

The Declaration of Independence includes some of Patrick Henry’s statements. It too must be read aloud as Henry’s speeches were spoken. Then we understand what lead to the conflict that gave birth to this great Republic: An arrogant parliament and king.

I believe we have the same arrogance today in the Congress and president. The Tea Party people are spat on with words, attempts are made to muzzle them by stacking the rooms of a public meeting before the alloted time with supporters of Heinrich and others do the same and at some meetings, union thugs are photographed beating people with no investigation by the democratic party prosecutors of that criminal activity.

Last weekend in a small town in Florida Glen Beck addressed a crowd of 25,000 plus and his book tour to numerous cities of south Florida drew many more thousands. Sarah Palin’s book sells 300,000 copies in 1 week. These two are voices of reason; they are explaining to the people what has been taken from them by the minions, the arrogant. They encourage the people to pick up the phone, write.

People do call, and contact their members of congress who then vote against them, who vote for a massive tax increase, who vote to take away freedom of choice, who vote to exempt themselves from the health care legislation they will force upon us. If not arrogant, what is their behavior?

I believe Damian, history always repeats it’s self. I pray I do not live to see the repeat of 1776. I pray for my children that we will take back our liberty at the ballot box before it can only be taken back the other way.

way to go, Damian and Phillip; you agree with each other again!
Now, if you could please respond to the CONTENT of posts?
Go somewhere else and praise each other to your heart’s content.
And Phillip, stop being so dramatic. “I pray for my children that we will take back our liberty at the ballot box before it can only be taken back the other way.”
Come ON! The political winds in America are always shifting back and forth. To get this worked up about the fact that there isn’t a right-wing president is complete either stupid or disingenuous. Obama isn’t very far left of center at all, so shut it with, “I pray I do not live to see the repeat of 1776.”

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn`t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

Bingaman and Udall, even if you support their policies and actions, really are whimps. Even the most loyal Dems must see that. But for the issue of News, at least the Fox news channel does not begin with a complete farce about their belief system like NPR does. National Public Radio is far and away the most slanted and biased news I ever listen to. They don’t know whether to poop or go blind now that their Grand Poopah the Bama has jumped on the war wagon.

I watch and listen to all the major news radio and cable news, Fox is more accurate, their’s no question about it. Just look at the ACORN issue if you don’t believe this fact. All the other major news outfits snubbed the story, even in the face of massive evidence. It’s the liberal media that’s biased, not Fox.

JD and AJB- you have a long and illustrious career waiting for both of you in the ACORN organization. All you have to do is show up baby, your local ACORN organization Wants You!

AJB, the issue of this chat is Fox news, does it give us the facts or is it a arm of the Republican party as Chris claimed. What Fox does is show us the activities of government employees, we hear their words, the words that allow us to decide if we want them in positions of power. Why have the NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC people not showed us the same video?

Either you do not know and understand the history of man’s fight for freedom or you do not believe freedom, as articulated by the founders of our Republic, is in danger of being lost. If it is the former, it reflects on your lack of knowledge of history. If the latter, why would you want to live in a nation where the government limits your success, decides what health care you will receive, what constitutes speech they find offensive, they criminalize? Fox News gives us the facts. Beck, O’Reilly and others give us facts with an explanation and interview people of opposing views. Those are not news shows. If you follow Beck, read his books- the library has them- you may conclude our Republic is in danger. You may accept that Glen Beck is a modern day Town Crier. If you read the words of Patrick Henry and others you will understand government oppression. If you crave liberty above life it’s self you will join Patrick Henry and the Tea Party movement in finding peaceful solutions so the other way of securing freedom does not have to happen.

AJB, today we fix the problems at the ballot box or they will be fixed in the future the hard way.

What Progressives don’t like is the light of truth shined on their Agenda. Progressives are the danger to freedom when they demand that only their point of view be heard. Be afraid, very afraid of progressives.

“way to go, Damian and Phillip; you agree with each other again! Now, if you could please respond to the CONTENT of posts?”

Well said, AJB. Yup, the right-wingers on these threads have quite the love fest with each other’s posts.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for an actual answer to any questions posed, however. Especially from Mr. Howell: he is quite the expert at posting long answers with many “factoids” – some true, many not – and yet totally dodging the question he was asked.

The media on either side is not as interested in truth as they used to be. However, Bill O’Rielly appears to have the desire to seek out the facts. He is clearly not a liberal, but still he does often report facts. The whole world has become bored with the liberal agenda anyway. The leftist liberal agenda has been a delusional poke at fantasy and fiction w/o an adequate amount of regard for reality and human nature. They have become their own worst enemy and don’t appear to be able to do anything to stop themselves.

Lawrence, your post of 12/10 had a non specific opinion, to wit, “Don’t hold your breath waiting for an actual answer to any questions posed, however. Especially from Mr. Howell: he is quite the expert at posting long answers with many “factoids” – some true, many not – and yet totally dodging the question he was asked.” Help me, what question asked of me in this blog have I not answered?

I really love reading posts that has lots of knowledge to impart. I admire those writers who share the best of their knowledge in writing such articles. Keep up the good work and continue inspiring readers.Thank you so much.

Business Capital Loans

So When did the quote— unquote poor & hungry people fall victim to ignorant, wasteful, “poor republicans” of this country if it was not for us poor hungry people trying to drive to and from work every day working for crappy pay, then being so exhausted we settle for some crappy fast food and have a beer that should tell you why the rich should actually be grateful for the hungry poor souls that people think should be disregarded. some people need a freakin bone once in a while greed is ungodly. What if Jesus said screw the poor & hungry?

If your poor and pretty sure it’s going to take you awhile to change that fact even though America is a great place to “come up in the world” why would you ever be a Republican? once you become rich then— make the decision whether or not it’s in your best interests to vote that way, and always “do your homework” on issues don’t jack up the political systems greatness by casting votes out of dislikes or personal bias. What’s in you and your children’s best interest?