Well, we've played "Name That Party" so often that it is getting to be old hat. How many times have we seen it where the MSM refuses to mention that a Democrat is the troubled politician in the news? We've also said many times that if only that criminal politician were a Republican, why we'd get the party mentioned ASAP. We say it and accept the claim as fact, but we don't often focus on examples to prove our case. Our detractors point to that and say "prove it!"
Call this one more example of proof.
It seems that Mike Krusee a REPUBLICAN State Representative from Williamson County, Texas got himself pulled over after a night of hittin' the hooch. Of course, we know he is a Republican because the MSM fell all over itself to let us know the fact. Curiously, Krusee is the same fellow who helped up the fines for drunk driving in the state house, the MSM also let us know.
In any case, what we have here is a run of the mill drunk driving case. Now, we can employ our little "Name that party" parlor game and note that if this were a drunk driving Democrat, we'd never learn from the press that he is, indeed, a Democrat. Democrat apologists would say, of course, that his party doesn't matter n this case, so why mention it?
We would wonder that too in the normal scheme of things.
On the other hand, our tippling Williamson Rep is a Republican and every single news outlet on the web that I find seemed to find it very, very important that we all become fully informed that he was a wascally Republican! It's all just another example of the double standard in applying the party affiliation in news stories. For Democrats, no mention or it's buried waaaay down in the story. For Republicans it's first up and made plain and unequivocal.
So here is how this news was reported...
Naturally the AP lets us know as quickly as possible that this drunken creep is a darned ol' Republican.
Rep. Mike Krusee of Round Rock, the Republican chairman of the House Transportation Committee, was charged with first offense driving while intoxicated late Wednesday. He is not running for re-election this year.
On the website for KXAN TV, Austin, the party made a prominent appearance at the beginning of the second paragraph:
Rep. Mike Krusee of Round Rock is the Republican chairman of the House Transportation Committee.
So does a blogger for the Austin-American Statesman paper, Isadora Vail.
State Representative Mike Krusee, R- Williamson County, was swerving between lanes in his black BMW on the frontage road of U.S. 183 Wednesday night, according to officials and an arrest affidavit.
Even Austin's Fox affiliate got into the party popping act:
State Representative Mike Krusee, R - Williamson County, was arrested Wednesday night for drunk driving in Williamson County.
As did News 8 Austin when they made sure we saw this:
Krusee is a Republican from Round Rock and the chairman of the House Transportation Committee.
Radio didn't want to be left in the dust, either. KLBJ was excited to let us know that Krusee was a Republican ner-do-well, too.
Rep. Mike Krusee, a Republican from Round Rock, was arrested Wednesday night and released Thursday morning after posting $1,000 bail.
There you have it. The MSM made a concerted to make sure we are informed that we have a rotten, drunken, slob of a Republican on our hands.
Ah, if only Mr. Krusee was a Democrat. Then we could all hoist a few to his party being successfully hidden by the lapdogs in the MSM who want not to sully the good name of the Democrat Party.
(Photo credit: statesman.com)
Comments Policy
Doing Their Jobs
May 1, 2008 - 20:43 ET by the curatorThere you have it. The MSM made a concerted to make sure we are informed that we have a rotten, drunken, slob of a Republican on our hands.
There you have it. The media doing its job of reporting the facts of a story. The suspect was a republican legislator. His title is part of what should be reported.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
And look at this...
May 1, 2008 - 21:00 ET by the curatorA quick search gives me MULTIPLE stories of drunk driving related offenses involving democrats where the media covering the story makes clear mention of their political party.
http://www.action3news.com/Global/story.asp?S=8245972
http://www.kolnkgin.com/home/headlines/18381479.html
http://www.news8austin.com/shared/print/default.asp?ArID=182824
http://wcco.com/local/senate.president.arrested.2.367604.html#loop (DFL is a MN democrat)
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2001/02/15/loc_senator_charged_with.html
http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20000930gruitzareg8.asp
http://www.newstribune.com/articles/2007/10/26/news_state/066state31graham.prt
http://starbulletin.com/2007/10/17/news/story01.html (in full story, not summary)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/nyregion/19mbrfs-DWI.html?_r=3&oref=login&ref=nyregion&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin (even the NYT)
Again, these were found with just a few moments in a search engine.
I think we can now dispense with the myth that media outlets do not report the party of democrats when they break the law... especially in the case of DUI/DWI.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
You....
May 1, 2008 - 21:12 ET by Warner Todd HustonYou haven't been here very long have you?
A Few Months...
May 1, 2008 - 21:15 ET by the curatorWhy?
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
"This is a day when all
May 1, 2008 - 21:23 ET by MightyMouth"This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve
for justice and peace. America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so
this time. None of us will ever forget this day. Yet, we go forward to defend
freedom and all that is good and just in our world. "
-George W. Bush, September 11, 2001
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I was inspired
May 1, 2008 - 21:27 ET by the curatorThis was President Bush's greatest moment. I didn't vote for him, but at that moment, I wished I had.
And he was right. We were all united. United behind the goal of finding those who attacked us and bringing them to justice.
But, that goal was derailed by his obsession with Iraq. The real killers were not there. Right now they're hiding in the mountains someplace.
And no, none of us will forget that day. In our hearts, many still mourn. And, in my opinion... the president continues to bring up 9/11 any time he needs to scare us into voting republican or to get his poll numbers up.
Something which has become less and less successfull as time has gone on.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
So to sum up...
May 1, 2008 - 21:51 ET by MightyMouth...your conclusion: Sadam Heussein was not an enemy of the US and not in violation of the Gulf war treaty?
"Something which has become less and less successfull as time has gone on."
So unlike President Bush, you will forget? After all, time heals all right? That's probably why we don't have military bases in Japan and Germany 63 years after WWII. Uh... wait I think we still do!
*MM rolling his eyes*
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
You're Assuming...
May 1, 2008 - 21:55 ET by the curatorSadam Heussein was not an enemy of the US and not in violation of the Gulf war treaty?
I don't know where you got that from.
Yes, he was an enemy and yes he was in violation. But, weigh the pros and cons of taking out a guy who had no WMD's, had nothing to do with 9-11 and hated al-Qaeda as much as we did.
So unlike President Bush, you will forget?
I didn't say I would forget. I can not forget about 9/11 and not be scared into voting for republicans.
That's probably why we don't have military bases in Japan and Germany 63 years after WWII. Uh... wait I think we still do!
Of course we do. But, those were different circumstances. Japan attacked us first... and Hitler was threatening to take over the world.
Saddam never attacked us... and he was fully contained. In no way was he a threat.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
See curator.. This
May 1, 2008 - 22:05 ET by bigtimerSee curator..
This example alone should explain very well to you what I meant to you yesterday on Ken Sheperd's thread about you being part of the problem if you are with the msm as you claim you are by the posts you have put here on NBs for quite a bit now.
I just wanted to thank you real quick...
...and you know very well what I am talking about.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Just Because
May 1, 2008 - 22:38 ET by the curatorJust because I have certain personal political philosphies doesn't mean I carry them into my news coverage. In fact I dont. You're assumption that all media do so is simply incorrect.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
Cur... That is your
May 1, 2008 - 22:47 ET by bigtimerCur...
That is your opinion...from my view...the majority of the msm certainly do....and just my opinion about you and your posts since you have been here seem to justify what I am saying....let alone I am quite sure you are well aware of the polls of how the msm vote....that should tell you something...I would think.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Just because I have certain
May 1, 2008 - 23:07 ET by Warner Todd HustonYou'll forgive us if we don't take your word for it? We don't have much respect for the word of anyone in the media around here and for good reason.
You most certainly do
May 2, 2008 - 11:24 ET by mattmBias isn't merely an act, it is also a failure to act. Media bias includes what is not covered, the frequency of coverage, the slant, the leaving off of labels, etc.
The fact that you actually believe that your political views don't filter into your reporting is the first indicator of bias. The way to combat bias is to admit your philosophical leanings so the reader can "consider the source."
But the MSM isn't interested in true objectivity, they're only interested in projecting an image of objectivity so they can sway public opinion to their way of thinking - In fact, this is the very reason most "journalists" went into that field - as polls have consistently indicated.
"It is obvious that there is an attempt here...to protect whatever remains of Saddam’s capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction...if we fail to act...He will then conclude that he can go right on...And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who’s really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too." - Bill Clinton 1998
Catch 22
May 2, 2008 - 18:10 ET by the curatorThe fact that you actually believe that your political views don't filter into your reporting is the first indicator of bias.
So, as a journalist my options are 1 - admit there is a bias in my reporting... or 2 - deny there is a bias in my reporting which proves there's a bias in my reporting.
Thats what youre saying.
You don't really give somone the chance of being a credible journalist.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
"
May 1, 2008 - 22:08 ET by MightyMouth"
I don't know where you got that from."
It's one of many reasons to go to war that people seem to forget...
"
I didn't say I would forget. I can not forget about 9/11 and not be scared into voting for republicans. "
Of course not, you would rather vote for people who want you to... uh..forget? Oh just forget about it, it didn't really happen.. there is no threat.
"Of course we do. But, those were different circumstances. Japan
attacked us first... and Hitler was threatening to take over the world."
Uh, maybe you should look up the definition of "Emperial Dictatorship". That would be a dictator who invades other countries to expand his Empire. You can even try wiki, I won't complain.
"Saddam never attacked us... and he was fully contained. In no way was he a threat."
The same could be said for Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, I mean Europe is so far away can't they keep their squables to themselves?
Jeeze, how old are you kid?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
You Don't Understand
May 1, 2008 - 22:42 ET by the curatorYou choose to ingnore the fact that Huessain was not a threat. He was totally contained.
Which is what makes that situation much more different than any prior wars.
I'm old enough to know that you're very misguided about this. Son.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
I'm old enough too
May 1, 2008 - 22:51 ET by RiharIf you have cancer would you rather remove it or "contain" it? Which choice do you think would be healthier?
Saddam was not benign.
When a liberal speaks, the truth is busy elsewhere.
Retort
May 2, 2008 - 09:18 ET by UnsaneYou choose to ingnore the fact that Huessain was not a threat. He was totally contained. The fact I cannot ignore is that you are an EXTREMELY POOR journalist. And barely professional, at that.
If you bothered doing your homework, you would know that the two nations that wanted to enforce sanctions against Saddam were the U.S. and Britain. Other coutries, notably France, wanted them over with, so they could do business with their good buddy Saddam again. You know, Paris could probably sell them a few more Mirages and Exocets, maybe get a few favorable contracts for their oil firms, and so forth.
France DESPERATELY needed that business because of their awful economic straits. Having double-digit unemployment, while burdened with a massive Nanny State the French rioters (er), citizens won't allow you to scale back does wonders for the French government's scruples. They will do business with ANYBODY, including Saddam Hussein.
On BBC World Report in 2000, I saw footage of the French flagrantly violating UN sanctions under the guise/whine that "we are only hurting the children with these sanctions!" "We are only here on a humanitarian basis!" Knowing what I know of the French, that is truly laughable.
Also, I'll be sure to let some intel guys and fighter pilots I know that Saddam was fully contained, and that their getting shot at and "painted" with radar (violations of UN Resolutions all) were merely figments of their imaginations.
Care to carry this further or do you require further embarrassment?
Actually, the way I see it, you should mail me one of your paychecks for doing YOUR research FOR you.
Which is what makes that situation much more different than any prior wars. As I have shown above with references to Overlord and Torch, apparently you don't really know what happened during prior wars, as your lack of history knowledge is on display.
I'm old enough to know that you're very misguided about this. Son. I won't speak for him, but if anyone here is misguided, it is you, not we. If you wish to be embarrassed further, by all means, continue.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
From a more general
May 2, 2008 - 09:42 ET by AgnosticFrom a more general POV:
Hussein was a threat to every person on the planet for as long as he took a breath. He may have temporarily been contained to some degree but the man maniacal nature, the wealth he had at his disposal and the acquaintances that he provided him the opportunity to strike out at anytime at some level.
Plus don't forget he was still offering a lot of money for suicide bombers and offering funding.
Curator, your credibility at NB is sinking like the Titanic.
May 1, 2008 - 23:02 ET by R D HelmYou really need to do your homework.
After all, Free did his. And a few other people's, too. :-)
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
You need to do your
May 2, 2008 - 18:13 ET by the curatorThe majority of links (from the link you sent me) were to FOX, Newsmax (two conservative operations) and Wikipedia - a bastion of correct information.
I remember many of the stories that were mentioned.
Including when FOX proudly proclaimed that WMD's were found.
Problem was, those WMD's were 10 years old (at least) and no longer active.
Try again.
Do YOUR own work. I've got enough on my resume to validate mine.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
curator the "journalist"
May 4, 2008 - 03:57 ET by UnsaneDo YOUR own work. I've got enough on my resume to validate mine. Actually, your extremely poor journalistic skills are showing themselves again. I'd be curious to see this "resume" of yours. At the rate this is going, Janet Cooke's is bound to be more appealing.
Problem was, those WMD's were 10 years old (at least) and no longer active. You don't know one damn thing about WMDs. Chemicals are very long lived. If chemical weapons go inactive after ten years, maybe you can explain to me why the U.S. government incinerated chemical weapons manufactured int he 1950s in the middle of the Pacific Ocean? Also, if chemical weapons just magically go inactive after ten years, maybe you can explain this to various French farmers, who still occasionally develop mustard blisters after plowing old WWI era battlefields. Last time I checked, WWI ended 90 years ago this November.
I would almost prefer to deal with nuclear weapons, in fact, as their effects are shorter-lived.
Do me a favor: mail me another one of your paychecks, as you do a very poor job of EARNING them.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Score: Unsane: A
May 4, 2008 - 04:10 ET by R D HelmScore:
Unsane: A gazillion.
Curator: Less than zilch.
Damn this is fun!
:-)
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
LOL RD... Oh please don't
May 4, 2008 - 04:14 ET by bigtimerLOL RD...
Oh please don't say you are taking FS' place when he isn't here....
I beg ya' ol' friend.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
bt, I would not even pretend to replace FS...
May 4, 2008 - 04:26 ET by R D Helm...as I wasn't anywheres near blessed with the patience he has.
I was simply enjoying watching Unsane turn Curator here into a wilted bowl of mush.
Worth stayin' up for, that is. :-)
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
Patience... You have got
May 4, 2008 - 04:30 ET by bigtimerPatience...
You have got to be kidding.
What does it take to come on and tell everybody what score the person scoring him thinks he has?
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
bt,
May 4, 2008 - 04:44 ET by R D HelmLOL-Actually, I was referring to FS's patience in building his links. :-)
I may be be good for one or two, perhaps even three on a good day, but nothing like FS's collection on Saddam's WMD's.
I'm just not wired that way.
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
I'm just not wired that
May 4, 2008 - 04:48 ET by bigtimerI'm just not wired that way.
Well, consider yourself colored lucky RD.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
bt,
May 4, 2008 - 04:49 ET by R D HelmLOL-Actually, I was referring to FS's patience in building his links.
I may be be good for one or two, perhaps even three on a good day, but nothing like FS's collection on Saddam's WMD's. I'm just not wired that way.
As for the scoring, well, I was just being a bit of a smart-ass.
Curator's smug (yet profoundly ignorant) "elitism" makes me want to positively hurl.
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
LMAO... This is where we
May 4, 2008 - 04:54 ET by bigtimerLMAO...
This is where we are in total agreement....hurl away!
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
" I didn't say I would
May 2, 2008 - 07:53 ET by dronetek"
I didn't say I would forget. I can not forget about 9/11 and not be scared into voting for republicans. "
Yet, you'll willingly be scared of Republicans, Global Warming and Karl Rove.
A good-natured correction
May 2, 2008 - 08:56 ET by Unsane...your conclusion: Sadam Heussein was not an enemy of the US and not in violation of the Gulf war treaty? What Gulf War treaty? There was no treaty with Iraq that I was aware of. UN Resolutions, but no treaty.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
True not an official treaty..
May 2, 2008 - 20:44 ET by MightyMouth(Maybe I watch too much BOR?)
But at least an agreement.
Bush called for a ceasefire on Feb 27th and whimped out making it necessary for his son to finish the job. A peace conference was held in Iraqi territory occupied by the coalition. But if you think about it, the original congressional approval was still in effect! So Dubya didn't even need a second approval from congress to go in the second time!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Rebuttal
May 2, 2008 - 09:06 ET by UnsaneAnd he was right. We were all united. United behind the goal of finding those who attacked us and bringing them to justice. Justice, for you perhaps, is sending them to The Slam and letting us all Living Happily Ever After. Me, justice means they all get bullets in the head until such time the message is clear that the United States is NOT to be jerked around with. But that requires massive violence, something which I suspect makes you extremely squeamish.
But, that goal was derailed by his obsession with Iraq. The real killers were not there. Right now they're hiding in the mountains someplace. So I take it you think Overlord and Torch were bad ideas? After all, Germany didn't bomb Pearl Harbor. Also, I'll be sure to call some friends of mine in Afghanistan and let them know they really aren't looking for "the real killers." Finally, let me guess: you think that the INSTANT we catch bin Laden (and I suppose put him on trial and upon conviction put him up at Marion, IL, because executing him would be MEAN), WORLD PEACE will spontaneuosly break out everywhere, and we can go right back to ignoring The Big Bad World. Right?
And no, none of us will forget that day. From what I see I think you have. In our hearts, many still mourn. And want to keep on mourning instead of actually (gasp!) DOING SOMETHING about it. Because it is much easier to sit around and whine then doing something about it. And, in my opinion... the president continues to bring up 9/11 any time he needs to scare us into voting republican or to get his poll numbers up. And you call yourself an objective journalist? Please tell me you have not worked for any of the San Antonio affiliates. By the way, the President isn't scaring you...he IS telling you the truth, which is something you can't deal with by the looks of it. Reagan wasn't scaring people by calling the USSR an "evil empire"...he was telling the truth. Whether you accept that reality or not is a different story.
Something which has become less and less successfull as time has gone on. Partly (but certainly not 100%) because you and your ilk desperately do not want to face cold hare reality, and want to keep on living as if it's still 10 September 2001, in a world where you could ignore the Big Bad World.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Score: Unsane:
May 2, 2008 - 11:20 ET by R D HelmScore:
Unsane: 6
ABP: 0
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
a beautiful troll
May 2, 2008 - 14:34 ET by candanceI'm starting to suspect that abeautifulperson is the professor in disguise.
Some things I agree with
May 2, 2008 - 14:46 ET by balboaSome things I agree with here, some I don't. Invading Iraq seemed to be akin to removing the pancreas because the liver had cancer.
Retort
May 2, 2008 - 18:22 ET by the curatorMe, justice means they all get bullets in the head until such time the message is clear that the United States is NOT to be jerked around with.
So I take it you think Overlord and Torch were bad ideas? After all, Germany didn't bomb Pearl Harbor.
You keep wanting to compare WWII with the War on Terror and the War in Iraq. They are all different. And if you can't recognize that, there's no use in my trying to teach you.
I'll be sure to call some friends of mine in Afghanistan and let them know they really aren't looking for "the real killers."
Don't bother. I've talked with my friends who are there - including my brother. They are chasing the real killers there. They've always been in Afghanistan. If you'd bother to read what I said... I said we had no business in Iraq.
And you call yourself an objective journalist?
Yeah, I do. The fact that you're surprised I have personal opinions and beliefs shouldn't be a surprise. We all do. But, I have the ability to separate my personal beliefs from my work.
I'm guessing you won't take me at my word on that. I'll let my letters of recommendation from politicians of both political parties do the talking there.
because you and your ilk desperately do not want to face cold hare reality,
Not at all. I would just deal with the new reality differently and more reponsibly than this president has.
The difference between you and I, is that I can respect when someone has a different opinion.
You back the president and War in Iraq. Fine. I have no problem with that. I have a different argument and I'll never personally insult someone for their beliefs.
The difference from some (on the left and right) is when differences of opinion turn into personal attacks.
If you want to bomb people into peace, feel free. But, there are ways of doing it. Which this president has failed at miserably.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
What right did the US have
May 2, 2008 - 20:57 ET by Jack BauerMore like re:fart...
But what right did the US have to invade Afghanistan?
The Afghans didn't attack America. None of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghans.
Most Afghans have probaly never even heard of America, and couldn't find it on a map.
Please justify why the mightiest military in the world had any right to invade the poor backward country of Afghanistan?
Where in international law does it say you can invade a sovereign nation, stay there seven years.. and all because a few hundred foreign national militants took safe harbor there?
Curator, you're right. The GWOT and WW II are different.
May 2, 2008 - 21:26 ET by R D HelmAnd the difference is that, in WW II, neither Germany, Japan nor Italy was ever really a direct threat to the existence of the United States. There was, however, a period right after Pearl Harbor the the West Coast of this country was wide open. Thankfully, the Japanese chose not to exploit that.
They were, however, indirect threats.
In the GWOT, however, the Islamic barbarian horde is a direct threat to this country, as well as every other country in which the adherents of this barbaric "religion" reside.
In case you haven't been paying attention in recent years, the Islamists have pretty much retaken most of the areas they held prior to the Crusades.
Spain has surrendered without firing a shot. France is in seriously deep doo-doo, and the UK is headed for disaster. Vast areas of Asia and Africa have been re-taken as well. Hell, the Islamists even have the Canadian government incarcerating people who are critical of the Islamic "religion." I don't have to tell you what the terrorist-supporting CAIR crowd has been up to in this country. None of this bodes well for our way of life, or the future of this country.
As for this country, we are now facing the serious threat of a nuke being detonated in a major city. Perhaps even Washington D.C. or New York. Perhaps both.
Should the Islamists ultimately prevail, and I am beginning to believe they will, predominantly because of the gutless, appeasing spinelessness of Western society, and people like you, this planet is headed for a return to the Dark Ages.
This country is not bullet-proof. It can be killed.
Welcome to WW IV. :-)
What the American people are looking for is somebody who can solve their problems. - Barack Obama, April 27, 2008
Oh curator, stick to the museums.
May 4, 2008 - 04:12 ET by UnsaneYou keep wanting to compare WWII with the War on Terror and the War in Iraq. They are all different. And if you can't recognize that, there's no use in my trying to teach you. Considering your horrific journalistic skills, I'd worry much more about re-acquiring THEM than teaching other people, especially people much more knowledgeable of the subject at hand than you are. I am drawing a very accurate analogy here, but you desperately want to ignore it. To say that Iraq does not represent a front on the War on Terror is just the same as whining about opening a second front in Europe, instead of focusing and concentrating exclusively on Japan. Listen to what Air Force officers tell you from time to time. You MIGHT learn something. Especially AF officers with a bird's eye view of what is happening in the Middle East.
Yeah, I do. The fact that you're surprised I have personal opinions and beliefs shouldn't be a surprise. We all do. But, I have the ability to separate my personal beliefs from my work. Your first three sentences make total sense! But you COMPLETELY BLEW IT on the last one. From what I have seen, you totally lack that ability. I know I would. I say that because I am human, after all.
Not at all. I would just deal with the new reality differently and more reponsibly than this president has. I am curious to see how. Let me guess. You'll take the following approach: talk endlessly to the bad guys, and hope and pray all works out in the end. The Neville Chamberlain/modern-day Democratic Party school of thought.
The difference from some (on the left and right) is when differences of opinion turn into personal attacks. What personal attacks? I call you a poor journalist because you ARE one, and that is something that can be corrected. Maybe you can actually do MORE RESEARCH and talk to more people who know the subject matter better than you do. Is that too hard to ask?
If you want to bomb people into peace, feel free. Sweetie, there is a cold, hard fact of life you constantly run away from. The best way to peace is VIOLENCE or the credible threat of violence. What, do you think the Soviet Union left Western Europe alone out of the kindness of their hearts? Um, NO...that was because if they valued their lives, they kept their hands off of it. Violence ALWAYS works. It is time tested and true. Don't believe me? I'll fly you to Carthage and there you can explain to them how talking your way to peace works (h/t to Heinlein). But, there are ways of doing it. Remember: VIOLENCE. It WORKS. Which this president has failed at miserably. Well, I am really sorry that the President didn't go up to the bad guys on his hands and knees, crying like a b#$!h the whole time, begging them not to inflict a 11 September 2001 on us a second time, as you would have him do. (But then, I don't want to live in a nation that is positively whiny as badly as you do.)
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Just a quick note, Unsane...
May 4, 2008 - 05:43 ET by JerJust a quick note, Unsane...I realize Germany didn't bomb Pearl Harbor, but there was that little glitch that I would presume caused a bit of diplomatic discomfiture on our part. I'm speaking of course about Hitler's declaration of war on the United States while we were still reeling from the Japanese attack on Pearl. Would you have preferred we had dispatched Harry Hopkins to Berlin to beg Adolf to hold his horses until we dealt with Togo?
As for bin Laden, I, personally, would be overjoyed to see his head on a pike...after which, if you want to Mirandize him, be my guest. In fact, I'm all for John McCain, if elected President, fulfilling his promise to chase this mass murdering piece of filth to the "gates of Hell". Apparently, you and the current President don't believe his capture or liquidation is of paramount importance. I have a different view, but, I certainly respect your opinion.
Jer
For Jer
May 5, 2008 - 03:06 ET by UnsaneLeave it to a Leftist to have an intense fetish for diplomacy and the instruments thereof. I didn't realize that Germany's war declaration led to the deaths of...well, anybody...on 8 December 1941. I didn't realize that IT, not the day previous, was "the day of infamy". I presume that FDR called it that because he paper cut himself on the war declaration after (I presume) it was presented to him by the German ambassador.
A state of war already existed between Germany and the United States at that time, as I would count the sinking of U.S. shipping to be an act of war. (But note that the Germans didn't, say, bomb New York a la the way the Japanese bombed Pearl.) And even with a war declaration...so what? Who said that the United States HAD to run after Germany immediately after that? According to Leftist logic, we still could have TALKED and TALKED and TALKED to Hitler and von Ribbentrop so they would see just how super-nice we were as a country.
You seem to presume I am a card-carrying Republican or a hard-core McCain supporter. I disagree with his statement on bin Laden. After all, growing up in the 1980s, I don't seem to remember a push to withdraw entirely from Western Europe so that we could concentrate on hunting down Abu Nidal. But then, Leftists...and some unfortunately elsewhere, see the capture of one marginalized pissant as the KEY to world peace.
Also, for the record, as you seem to have ignored, I believe justice is best accomplished with swiftly fired bullets in the backs of heads of our enemies, not Mirandizing and coddling (I leave that to the Left). If I thought for ONE SECOND that capturing bin Laden would do ANYTHING beyond slaking the thirst for justice, I'd be all for plunging 10 million troops into Afghanistan to hunt him down. But, as it won't do much else, I don't see that as a priority as much as you do. But then, not only will the capture of bin laden lead to perpetual World Peace in the eyes of Leftists, it will also lead to them saying "We don't need a military anymore! YAY!" Anything to avoid the truths of national survival...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Unsane...Just noticed
May 5, 2008 - 03:31 ET by JerUnsane...Just noticed your post as I was about to log off. I'll respond more fully sometime tomorrow, but, for now, allow me to note that you seem to presume I am a Leftist. Not quite.
Stay safe.
Jer
Word usage
May 6, 2008 - 11:11 ET by UnsaneYou share many Leftist traits. And if you have noticed, I very rarely call people "liberals". I think the term "Leftist" is more accurate for those of that political persuasion/leaning and sounds nastier.
By the way, call me a "Rightist" if you wish. in no way am I offended.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Well, by all means, Unsane...
May 6, 2008 - 13:07 ET by JerWell, by all means, Unsane...opt for the "nastier". Just curious....What are a few of the "many Leftist traits" I share?
Jer
For one...
May 6, 2008 - 17:12 ET by Warner Todd HustonYou keep acting as if I... ME... WARNER T HUSTON.... could POSSIBLY be wrong!!
THAT has to rank right up there with the worst sort of comportment!
There should be a LAW...
;)
Warner
May 6, 2008 - 18:00 ET by JerWell, yeah...you nailed me there. But, that was too easy. Name another one.
[How about if I destroy the manuscript for the biography I had planned...]
WTH: NewsBusters "Mr. Conservative"
or
"How Could Someone so Right be so Wrong?"
Jer
Have...
May 6, 2008 - 18:54 ET by Warner Todd HustonHave you been talkin' to my wife?
You mean my primary
May 6, 2008 - 19:50 ET by JerYou mean my primary anonymous source?
Jer
I GOT...
May 6, 2008 - 20:36 ET by Warner Todd HustonI GOT to take that cell phone away from her!
Explanation
May 7, 2008 - 02:44 ET by UnsaneYou seem a little eager to rush to the defense of Leftists. You have, IIRC, admitted to political support of Leftists in the past. You also got quite upset when I stated that if you (meaning anyone) cast a vote for Obama or Clinton (whoever gets the nod) this November, you are no better than a common thief.
I am still working on the philosophical discussion of how one looks at taxation, by the way, so you'll see that soon. Not just yet though. How you react to that will be a very good gauge of your Leftism.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Unsane...I guess you need
May 9, 2008 - 01:30 ET by JerUnsane...I guess you need to name a few of the Leftists I have rushed to defend. You have already noted that you generally refer to all liberals as Leftists. How about mainstream Democrats? Do you drag them under your Leftist umbrella, too?
Your definitions are so broad, it is almost impossible to respond unless you exhibit more specificity with your assertions.
And, yes, I thought your "common thief" description of any Obama or Hillary voter was a tad extreme. It would be helpful if your political commentary were as tightly reasoned as your foreign policy analyses.
Jer
»→ You're Right Jer
May 9, 2008 - 01:50 ET by Cool ArrowThere are Democrats who are against further taxation.
An earlier campaign iteration labeled them Reagan Democrats.
Not all Democrats are in favor of stealing from productive Americans to buy the votes of lazy, malingering Americans.
Definitely most, but not all.
♣ a seal
Well, Cool...thanks for at
May 9, 2008 - 01:54 ET by JerWell, Cool...thanks for at least throwing a few crumbs our way. <wink>
Jer
Depressingly accurate
May 9, 2008 - 09:07 ET by UnsaneAnd, yes, I thought your "common thief" description of any Obama or Hillary voter was a tad extreme. I prefer the term "depressingly accurate". It would be helpful if your political commentary were as tightly reasoned as your foreign policy analyses. Well, sorry if you feel that way. Simply put, I am very fiscally conservative, a no-holds-barred foreign policy realist, and as far as social issues go...well, depends on the issue. Trust me, many of the conservatives here do not believe me to be very conservative on social issues for various reasons (well, I suspect so, anyways).
Due to the restraints of time I am prevented from giving much more thorough answers...but be thankful that the NB search engine sucks now.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
"MULTIPLE"??
May 2, 2008 - 05:01 ET by sarcasmoMaybe so. I still say you can't find ONE where the drunk's a large-L Libertarian or a large-G Green and the biased media don't mention the "minor" party, and prominently. The media can not be trusted with the decision of whether party identification is relevant. Nobody trusts them, especially me, and unlike the Democrats and Republicans, I don't have a well funded group like Media Matters or NB to broadcast my views.
I'm instead forced to piggyback them here. This means, if you hang around here, you're going to have to get used to the words "antilibertarian bias" or maybe "pro duopoly bias," because whether you like admitting it or not, it's there, and I'm happy to admit the media's bias for you in these cases. If you want the dead horse beating to stop, the media needs to develop a scandal coverage standard for party identification, to eliminate the obvious bias we keep bustin'.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I undertsand now
May 2, 2008 - 18:24 ET by the curatorOK... I've been struggling to understand what you've meant by 'pro-duopoly' bias. I get it now. And I don't entirely disagree.
Third parties are shut out constantly. I think you re totally right.
And I think it is more laziness than bias on the medias part. It's a big enough job covering the major party candidates. It's just easier to focus on the big dogs than try to give every minor party candidate their time, too.
But, I totally see where you're coming from now.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
the curator, heres a book that will explain your L life to you.
May 2, 2008 - 21:11 ET by upcountrywaterYou must read it today!
The POPE says, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
IranianUranium<sleep>New/Infrastructure/repair?/ROFLMAO
I don't care if it's laziness or bias
May 3, 2008 - 03:36 ET by sarcasmoThe news media, if only because of the antilibertarian bias angle you've just-admitted (and leaving aside any arguments about other media biases, real or imagined) needs to develop easy to understand standards regarding party-identification in scandal stories.
The longer you wait and say "trust us," the more the news media's already shaky credibility will erode. For the sake of NB itself, if not this well-beaten dead horse; please, at the next opportunity, propose a simple party ID standard to any professional bodies you can think of. This needs to be a change in the AP style book, etc. Decades of antilibertarian media malfeasance, whether it's due to laziness or bias or both, mean that you simply can't expect Libertarians like me to trust the media.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
What a hypocrite you
May 2, 2008 - 11:13 ET by mattmWhat a hypocrite you are!!!!
You make excuses when the media fail to mention the Party of a bad actor when it's a Democrat, yet when it's a Republican the media are doing their job by announcing it.
Thanks for clearly demonstrating your duplicity, hypocrisy and total lack of credibility!
"It is obvious that there is an attempt here...to protect whatever remains of Saddam’s capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction...if we fail to act...He will then conclude that he can go right on...And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who’s really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too." - Bill Clinton 1998
Far as...
May 2, 2008 - 14:26 ET by Warner Todd HustonAs far as I am concerned, the party affiliation is important to mention in EVERY story that involves a politician. It doesn't matter the party or the subject of a story. If a pol is mentioned, so should his party be so mentioned.
Holy Crap! That guy was my
May 2, 2008 - 00:04 ET by Gary P JacksonHoly Crap! That guy was my rep when I lived all of those years in Round Rock!! Round Rock is also the home of Congressman John Carter, who of course is a Republican.
Williamson County is all about law and order. Being so close to Austin, the bastion of liberalism, and all that entails, if the cops are chasing someone through Travis county into Williamson, they've been know to let the county, or Round Rock PD have them.
They are especially hard on DWIs
The AP at it again this morning
May 2, 2008 - 09:39 ET by RightOfMostAnd to add this morning, courtesy of the AP (shocker!), from New York State.
It only took 'em TWO words. And there's the obligatory presidential tie-in, for some damn reason.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353846,00.html
We really don't ask for much. If those jerks at AP would just be consistent. It's just like an ump giving 6" off the corners to one pitcher while giving the other a "teacup."
Hey, Mr. McCain, real Republicans know they must fight the other side to win! Stay out of their way!
Another Expl
May 2, 2008 - 19:51 ET by the curatorIs this an example of the conservative media unecessarily putting out a democrats party affilitation?
Or, just a media outlet doing it's job - no different than the article in which this blog entry is based?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-02-ag-scandal_N.htm
Leader of both parties were critical of Attorney General Marc Dann, one of several Democrats swept into office in 2006 after a scandal over state investments sullied Republicans.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
MUST......NOT.....
May 2, 2008 - 19:56 ET by BlondeRespond....to...liberal....trolls.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Remember
May 2, 2008 - 20:00 ET by PeskyDaneRemember Blonde, finding the exception changes the rule in the syphilitic functioning of the libtard brain.
You know I have the feeling
May 2, 2008 - 20:10 ET by mandrakeYou know I have the feeling that if a "libtard" had said that against a conservative around here they'd be banned.
BTW, how does one get banned here..I'm trying but nothing seems to work!
And "libtard" is such a
May 2, 2008 - 20:13 ET by balboaAnd "libtard" is such a helpful term...
Well, acurate, to say the
May 2, 2008 - 20:18 ET by PeskyDaneWell, acurate, to say the least.
At least as "acurate" as
May 2, 2008 - 20:24 ET by balboaAt least as "acurate" as your typing skills.
Uh-oh, are the spelling and
May 2, 2008 - 20:29 ET by PeskyDaneUh-oh, are the spelling and syntax Nazis out?
No, the Typing Mounties.
May 2, 2008 - 20:35 ET by balboaNo, the Typing Mounties. :-)
Ok, that was good.
May 2, 2008 - 20:36 ET by PeskyDaneOk, that was good.
:-D
May 2, 2008 - 20:49 ET by balboa:-D
No, I've seen A LOT worse.
May 2, 2008 - 20:16 ET by PeskyDaneNo, I've seen A LOT worse. Which is one of the points of a forum. The right to be occasionally uncivil in a civil discourse.
Please.
May 2, 2008 - 20:16 ET by BlondeAll one needs to do to be banned here....is to quit logging on.
Or be an idiot, in public. Use foul language, threaten other posters, lie unabashedly....take your pick.
"Libtard" is mild. If a little more, um, inflamatory language is your thing.....go to Kos.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
My, my, blonde, aren't they
May 2, 2008 - 20:19 ET by PeskyDaneMy, my, blonde, aren't they prickly tonight?
Positively, PD
May 2, 2008 - 20:25 ET by BlondeMust be a full moon, or somesuch.
Prickly little pears.
Notice the deafening silence on anything of substance, tho.
Whine, moan, groan...then name call and haul a**. Typical libtards, Pesky. :D
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde, ya I know but this
May 2, 2008 - 20:23 ET by mandrakeBlonde, ya I know but this site is so addicitive and I have a lot of time on my hands. Foul language and lying is not my style..so I'll just come right out and say it...I BELIEVE IN UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE..so there :P)
Newsflash - we HAVE
May 2, 2008 - 20:26 ET by PeskyDaneNewsflash - we HAVE universal healthcare. We've had it for decades.
PeskyDane, Ok, I guess
May 2, 2008 - 20:37 ET by mandrakePeskyDane,
Ok, I guess I meant universal health care for even the poorest child or elderly person who is unemployed and cannot afford private insurance. Is that clear enough?
Crystal clear. We have it
May 3, 2008 - 09:13 ET by PeskyDaneCrystal clear. We have it already. Now if you want to increase the amount of government involvement in the healthcare system, we can discuss how much is appropriate. Here's another interesting tidbit - every president from Truman through Regan (yes, my fellow small government advocates, Reagan) sent a bill to congress to close the loop on socialized medicine. Not sure about Bush I.
My point is, no one in the United States is denied health care. It's not a perfect system, and I doubt it ever will be, and I can't say for sure where lies the answer. I'm pretty sure, however, given its propensity to jack up nearly everything, the federal government should not get any more involved in it then it already is. (Ended that last sentence on a prep, I know).
Thief
May 4, 2008 - 04:15 ET by UnsaneOk, I guess I meant universal health care for even the poorest child or elderly person who is unemployed and cannot afford private insurance Fine, mandrake. Pay for it yourself. Stop stealing from your fellow Canadians for once to make your guilt-ridden heart beat easier.
There IS a reason why Canada has done NOTHING to advance the frontiers of medical science since 1968, and why the United States does ALL the heavy lifting in that realm of science. Did you know, for instance, that M.D. Anderson in Houston has a research budget that is LARGER than ALL OF CANADA???
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.