The announcement Wednesday from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) would now approve of surveillance actions under the “Terrorist Surveillance Program,” prompted a return to the bad network habit of describing as “domestic spying” and “domestic eavesdropping” the effort to monitor communication between people inside the United States and suspected terrorists abroad. With “Domestic Spying” on screen, ABC World News anchor Charles Gibson cited “a major reversal today by the Bush administration in the war on terrorism. Two years ago, you may recall, the administration maintained it had the right to spy on people in the United States, without court approval. Today, however, the Justice Department said there will be no such surveillance of people in this country without court approval.” (A look at CBS and NBC follows)
The January 17 CBS Evening News put “Domestic Eavesdropping” on screen as anchor Katie Couric suggested President Bush had dropped the program, not just brought it under court supervision, as she very misleadingly referred to eavesdropping on “Americans” when it could be anyone inside the United States: “In the war on terror here at home, a surprising development today. President Bush is giving up what he's long insisted is a key weapon, his program of eavesdropping without a court order on the phone calls and e-mails of Americans suspected of communicating with terrorists.” Jim Axelrod had to correct her and point out how the program continues: “We should make the point Katie, about this about-face, that the eavesdropping won't stop at all. It's just that the requests will have to now be monitored by a judge.”
The NBC Nightly News avoided the loaded and inaccurate on screen graphic, going with the more generic "Electronic Surveillance," but anchor Brian Williams contended the program targeted “U.S. citizens” when it really deals with anyone within the borders of the United States communicating with a terrorist outside the borders: "Tonight the Bush administration has reversed itself on one of the most controversial pieces of the President's anti-terror program. It involved listening in on the phone calls of U.S. citizens without a warrant."
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Every single network has repl
January 17, 2007 - 21:19 ET by bigtimerEvery single network has replicated this wording today...are we surprised...I think not.
"If we ever forget that we are a Nation Under God....then we will be a Nation Gone Under." Ronald Reagan
BT,Well, I'm still waiting to
January 17, 2007 - 21:21 ET by BlondeBT,
Well, I'm still waiting to see a picture of Katie in her daughter's jumper while she blathers on so serious-like.
I almost died laughing when I saw her outfit the other night.
The "domestic spying" thing has me furious, though.
What is it that these liberals don't get?
Maybe they'll get it when an airliner lands on their head....then again, maybe not.
a News update on Fox News j
January 18, 2007 - 00:38 ET by JPninera News update on Fox News just now they called it: "Domestic Surveillience" program and then in next breath they said the "FOREIGN...."
We can not win the WOT with the media we have and spineless politicians to go with them
What Liberals 'get'
January 18, 2007 - 20:03 ET by clickerWhat Liberals 'get' that you conservatives don't is this: If there is spying on the phone calls of "anyone inside the United States" suspected of communicating with terrorists, that includes Americans, which violates our rights. That's the whole point. You can't spy on Americans without court approval (which never hampered or slowed the surveillance, as you could get a warrant retroactively). What I don't 'get' is why you all are so willing to give up the rights and liberties that other Americans have fought and died for in an effort to save your own skin. That's wrong, un-American and cowardly. You're bowing to the fear the terrorists are creating.
What Liberals get...
January 18, 2007 - 20:18 ET by misterbillWhat Liberals get... Actually what you don't get is the concept of security. You wave this rights flag all the time. I would like to see you get the rights that German citizens had under Hitler, Russians under Stalin. etc, etc. I have nothing to hide and I have no fear of what my government will find in my mail or phone conversations.What the hell is wrong with you--when there is a major weather problem we take extreme means to protect ourselves, we don;t follow every day rules. The storm of terrorism needs to be handled the same way.
Enough--I will close by saying that so far, these rights(your opinion) that have been violated have resulted in the saving of American lives.
PS As far as me personally--if I thought you were guilty of communicating with terrorists, I would be furious with my government if they didn't monitor your conversations.
We get it
January 18, 2007 - 23:15 ET by clickerWe absolutely get the concept of security. Much more, apparently, than the President does. He and the conservative congress have done virtually nothing to increase our security in the most obvious ways; they failed to even recognize the threat (http://thinkprogress...), outed CIA agents who were working to keep us safe (http://www.tpmcafe.c...), failed to increase port security (http://thinkprogress...) (http://thinkprogress...) (http://thinkprogress...), hired inexperienced administrators (http://thinkprogress...), reduced our security by starting and misleading us about a foolish war and letting the biggest threat disappear (http://thinkprogress...) (http://thinkprogress...), allowed Iran and North Korea to develop the nukes you’re so worried about, and on and on and on.
When will you understand that liberals have no problem with tapping phone calls of suspected terrorsts!! You guys clearly don’t understand this law. Anytime an agency wants to wiretap, they simply have to get approval from the FISA court. Speed is not an issue. They can tap any call they want, then get a warrant up to 72 hours later. This court almost never rejects a request, less than 1 percent of the time. Read this (http://www.fff.org/c...) and you’ll get it. I’d like to see what you guys would say if Hillary Clinton arbitrarily decided that she gets to look at your email or listen to your phone calls.
To say that we use extreme measures and not every day rules is ridiculous! If this war on terror is a war without end as Mr. Bush describes it, than these rules are going to be in place forever, making them the every day rules,
As President Bush often says: “The terrorists hate our freedom.” So what you’re basically saying is “The terrorists hate our freedom, so we’ll show them! We’ll take away our freedom!” Terrorists win. Nice work, scaredy pants.
The problem is that you Lefti
January 18, 2007 - 23:29 ET by UnsaneThe problem is that you Leftists have a very hard time differentiating between monitoring phone calls made overseas to suspect phone numbers and normal everyday calls.
If Bush was doing even a tenth of what Leftists routinely accuses him of, the nation would be completely bankrupt. Nations like Romania tried to monitor every phone conversation - to the point of having the Securitate having offices at every single switchboard in the nation - and that didn't seem to get the country very far. It was quite effective in being one of the crimes that got Nicolae Ceaucescu and his wife a bullet in each of their heads for Christmas one year, however.
Sure, we would love to know what these phone numbers are for peace of mind, so we ALL know that 1) the government IS doing its job and 2) our civil liberties can't possibly be infringed upon since the government is telling us what it is doing. But the sad fact is that the government can't show its hand for fear of spooking the bad guys and thus cutting us off from information. So we have the monitoring program we are stuck with.
If one domestic phoine call is eavesdropped upon without a warrant, let me know. Besides, the government has better things to do than to worry about things like that.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Unsane, the leftists have a
January 18, 2007 - 23:34 ET by terrigUnsane, the leftists have a very hard time differentiating everything.
One?
January 18, 2007 - 23:38 ET by clickerIf one has been? How about Tens of Millions? (from May 11, 2006)
---
President Bush spoke moments ago about a USA Today report on a massive NSA database that collects information about all phone calls made within the United States. Bush did not deny any of the contents of the article, but he did say:
USA Today, 5/11/06:
Collecting information on “tens of millions of Americans” doesn’t seem very targeted.
http://thinkprogress...
---
On phone calls and Coventry
January 18, 2007 - 23:43 ET by UnsaneYou ever think that maybe those "tens of millions" are sorted out and eventually eliminated, strictly on the basis of phone numbers, to the hundred or so suspect phone calls? At which point, law enforcement authorities then ask for a warrant and THEN see what the call was all about?
What would be your call on the Coventry bombing, out of curiousity?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
That's kinda the point, Unsan
January 18, 2007 - 23:55 ET by clickerThat's kinda the point, Unsane. 'Maybe' they are, and 'maybe' they do (though I don't know what that changes). But I don't want any group of people in the government to be able to do whatever they want without anyone else knowing what they are doing. The maybe's are the issue. Let the secret FISA court know what you're doing.
To what are you referring regarding the Coventry bombing?
Why, that would be the bombin
January 19, 2007 - 00:14 ET by UnsaneWhy, that would be the bombing where Churchill was faced with a gut-wrenching decision: defend the city of Coventry, attack the Luftwaffe bombers, and thwart them from the attack, or let the bombers hit Coventry anyway.
Churchill came across the infomation via the code breakers (who IIRC were using Enigma as the submariners were doing) who determined when Coventry would be hit and with what. He had the golden opportunity to stop the bombing from happening, but in order to do so, he would have revealed he was reading the enemies' mail.
Thus Churchill made the decision: let the bombers through. In so doing, Coventry sustained one of the worst bombings in the Battle of Britain, but the intelligence that was kept secret was a major factor in winning the war. In fact, the story of how the Enigma code was broken remained secret for nearly three decades afterwards.
What would you have done?
As for the rest of your paragraph: again, it is pretty damn hard to violate civil liberties. People really have a hard time keeping their mouths shut in a free society as ours. Conspiracies are right out for the same reason. And this IS the reason for the FISA court: the judiciary at some point makes damn sure that you are doing what you are supposed to be doing within the letter of the law. I would much rather have the government make the effort to prevent 12 September than sit around and do absolutely nothing, don't you?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
If that were true, I'd have a
January 19, 2007 - 00:30 ET by clickerIf that were true, I'd have a tough decision to make, and I might do the same. (Not sure what that has to do with FISA, but OK)
Unfortunately, the story is false. It never happened.
------
A common myth surrounding the bombing is that Coventry was deliberately sacrificed in order to prevent the Germans knowing that Enigma cipher machine messages were being read by British codebreakers. This has been proven untrue — Winston Churchill was aware that a heavy raid was to take place, but it was not known where, and was expected to be in London.
http://en.wikipedia....
------
And here:
http://www.winstonch...
------
Wikipedia is a poor source.
January 19, 2007 - 00:39 ET by UnsaneWikipedia is a poor source. But being as I am a student of history, I will discuss this with some doctoral candidates I know whose specialties lie in British history.
But being that as it may (subject to my verification), there was still a raid on Britain Churchill knew about and permitted, yes?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
You might have missed the oth
January 19, 2007 - 00:50 ET by clickerYou might have missed the other link.
Assuming the story to be false, he didn't 'permit' the raid, he didn't know where it would be.
I noticed it and therefore st
January 19, 2007 - 00:57 ET by UnsaneI noticed it and therefore stated I would seek verification elsewhere.
Apparently by your own admission he knew it would hit someplace in England, and with the Germans lacking long range bomb capability, that cut out the northern part of the country. And they weren't about to bomb farmland. So it had to be a major city.
(I suspect this is like the age-old argument that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor and let it happen to allow for political support to be built up to enter the war. That will go back and forth for many decades yet.)
The point of this being: would YOU permit something similar happening to this country if you found out about it in advance? Could that be the point of this whole operation, NOT about finding out about your personal life?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Right, it had to be a major c
January 19, 2007 - 01:05 ET by clickerRight, it had to be a major city. Bombing...with planes. So how could he have stopped it again? He assumed it would be London.
Of course that's the point of the program... spying is important for national security. Just get a warrant, that's all. Simple.
Bedtime.
Most of the bombing runs came
January 19, 2007 - 01:38 ET by UnsaneMost of the bombing runs came from the same direction. Unless the Germans had some aircraft carriers off of Scotland I wasn't aware of.
I still am awaiting proof that warrants are not issued. Direct proof from a source that can be easily evaluated.
Bedtimes are short for you, are they not?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Unsane
January 19, 2007 - 02:02 ET by Carl KolchakUnsane, what's happening. I got about 20 minutes or so and then I have to retire for the night. What is your take on FDR and knowledge of Pearl Harbo?. It appears to me that the US did break Japanese radio codes and knew an attack was coming. I think it was called Project Magic. They didn't know where or when, but it appears that they knew an attack was coming. The US had also broken off all diplomatic relations with the Japanese, and the Japanese government had decided on war since the diplomatic relations had ceased.
Also what's your take on Operation Sea Lion and the Battle of Britain? To me it appears that Operation Sea Lion was a farce and the Germans were trying to fake out the Russians, so they could start plans to invade Russia with Barbarrosa. It also appears that the Russians may have been planning on attacking the Germans in Poland as well. Soon after Barbarrossa the Germans found many concealed tanks and other supplies that weren't used defensively by the Soviets, and may have been put there to plan a surprise attack on the Germans.
"I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane" Waylon Jennings
For Mr. Kolchak
January 19, 2007 - 03:59 ET by UnsaneYou're talking about when Magic broke the "Purple" code the Japanese were using. I read a great article on that while in college and wish I would have kept it. It made a fairly solid case for SOMEONE in government knowing what was going to go down. My personal thought is that we'll never know for sure, unless some new information comes to light over the next few decades. The last book on WWII is FAR from being written.
It is evenings like these where I curse loudly for not having my beloved library with me. I could flip through some books and pull some quotations that may act as pennies for thoughts...but from the Soviet perspective, any kind of fakery on the part of the Germans would be superfluous, as the Soviets were busy faking out themselves. In Stalin: Court of the Red Tsar, when Barbarossa hits and attempts are made to contact Stalin personally, the military personnel on duty are at a loss whether or not to disturb him; as you might imagine they were terrified of doing so. From what I remember of Keegan's WWII history, virtually everyone in Europe knew what was happening except Stalin; either that or he knew and did nothing (his response was delayed). Everything seemed to be functioning just fine on the front until the Germans surged across and then it was too late to do much of anything. Don't forget that to add insult to injury Stalin had his best generals shot in the 1937-1938 purges and had them replaced with what were, to put it mildly, military reactionaries. But hey, they WERE politically reliable, right?
Where did you get that information on the unused defensive Soviet armaments? I have to read about that...slightly unrelated, did you hear about the caches found throughout Eastern Europe after the Cold War of street signs and currency for territories that were to be occupied after a successful invasion of Western Europe?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Interesting
January 19, 2007 - 16:08 ET by Carl KolchakI didn't know about the caches found througout Eastern Europe of street signs and currency for territories that were to be occupied after a successful invasion of Western Europe. Very interesting.
I had read a book about deception in warfare and it talked about the Germans using Operation Sealion as a farce to fake out the Soviets. You are correct in that many people did try to convince Stalin that the Germans were going to attack, but were probably very fearful of him. The book I read also talked about how the Allies had deceived Hitler with their actual landing site for D-Day. Even when the Allies landed at Utah, Omaha and Sword, Hitler was convinced that there was going to be a huge landing somewhere else. The Allies had gotten out a lot of misinformation in regards to the invasion, and Hitler bought it.
I had also read about the deception about Operation Sealion in a magazine I frequently purchase called "Armchair General" that also talked about the Germans trying to deceive the Soviets. It was in either that magazine or the book I read that talked about the concealed weaponry found in Russia. Also I haven't read this book but in "Stalin's Folly: The Tragic First Ten Days of WWII on the Eastern Front", the author surmises that Stalin was going to attack the Germans.
"I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane" Waylon Jennings
Your saying the government ca
January 19, 2007 - 00:34 ET by clickerYour saying the government can spy on me because Americans can't shut their traps? I know that's the reason for the FISA court. That's why I don't want it bypassed!
Your reading comprehension is
January 19, 2007 - 00:44 ET by UnsaneYour reading comprehension is considerably worse than your source evaluation.
With the number of people involved in such a program, you don't think that SOMEONE is going to talk about it at some point if unsavory things are being done? You don't think SOMEONE is going to blow the whistle (and seek whistleblower protection) at some point? Do you truly believe that 544 people are going to simultaneously agree that it is 100% okay to spy on people domestically?
I, for one, would like direct evidence that the FISA court, or any other court or mechanism, has been bypassed, a single time.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
I'm not going to leave it to
January 19, 2007 - 00:55 ET by clickerI'm not going to leave it to chance, thank you very much, or wonder what 'at some point' is. Especially with the government dismissing whistle blower protection, and prosecuting people for speaking out.
Didn't you read my previous post? The President admitted they did/do it and defended their actions. So has Alberto Gonzales, and a slew of other gov officials.
Bedtime!
Well, I guess it is much easi
January 19, 2007 - 01:00 ET by UnsaneWell, I guess it is much easier to sit on the ground and cry about how things are done than to think things through.
If some terrorist comes along and riddles you with bullets, will you be crying "WWAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! YOU CAN'T DO THIS TO ME!!!!!!!!!!! I HAVE RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!! I HAVE RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I suspect you will. Me, I'd rather have something done about it. I know I'm not being looked at; I don't make international phone calls to nations with known terrorist supporting regimes on a routine basis. What about you?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
No, I’m complaining about h
January 19, 2007 - 07:21 ET by clickerNo, I’m complaining about how things are done, trying to convince others of my point of view and motivate them to make change. Kinda the American way, no?
Your ascension into intellectual heights here is dizzying, but none of you have yet to answer my simple questions: 1) How is this program not unconstitutional, 2) What about getting a warrant from the FISA court impedes the surveillence of suspected terrorists, 3) Why does your personal fear allow you to be so willing to trivialize the sacrifices and deaths of other Americans who fought for the principles of this country?
1) Has this program been rule
January 19, 2007 - 14:34 ET by Unsane1) Has this program been ruled unconstitutional?
2) I still have yet to see evidence that no warrants have been issued from the FISA court
3) Unlike you whiny, mealy-mouthed Leftists, I have put my ass on the line for the "principles of this country" you so cry about but don't do one damn thing to protect. I have no doubt that if you had your way, if I am deployed to the AOR and capture enemy combatants, you will demand I Mirandize them because "we are better than that"; nevermind that I was/am routinely drilled in the Laws of Armed Conflict, etc.
The fact of the matter is that you desperately want to believe the absolute worst about this country and are willing and eager for evidence thereof, no matter how flimsy.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Uns, Better give clicker a cl
January 19, 2007 - 00:03 ET by BlondeUns,
Better give clicker a clue on Coventry.
Buy him a dog, and name it clue. Then he will have one.
January 19, 2007 - 00:07 ET by Free Stinker(sigh)
Don't any of these Moonbats know any history? :-\
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing that seperates liberals from conservatives is that liberals are craftier and work without the hinderance of a conscience." --Lynn Wooley
Free,That was funny...you sho
January 19, 2007 - 00:15 ET by BlondeFree,
That was funny...you should have posted your subject in the body of your post.
Alas....in answer to your question....of course not.
That's why they all believe they're so enlightened and full of original thoughts.
Thank You. (blush)Buy him a
January 19, 2007 - 00:30 ET by Free StinkerThank You. (blush)
Buy him a dog, name it clue. Then he will have one. --I've been taking funny lessons in night school.
What kind of a dog should it be? Should we subject a dog to being with a Moonbat? Would the ASPCA get upset?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing that seperates liberals from conservatives is that liberals are craftier and work without the hinderance of a conscience." --Lynn Wooley
You too, Free Stinker. I actu
January 19, 2007 - 00:31 ET by clickerYou too, Blonde. I actually already knew about the Coventry bombing story. I wanted to make sure to what Unsane was referring before I responded, because I didn't want to shoot down the story before knowing whether he/she knew it too. See my post above.
Of course you did. BT
January 19, 2007 - 00:38 ET by Free StinkerOf course you did.
BTW - you remind me of somebody. Do you attend a third rate college?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing that seperates liberals from conservatives is that liberals are craftier and work without the hinderance of a conscience." --Lynn Wooley
Me too, what....clicker?
January 19, 2007 - 00:42 ET by BlondeMe too, what....clicker?
Clicker and source evaluation
January 20, 2007 - 02:06 ET by UnsaneIt really is too bad that you, in fact, didn't really shoot down too much after all.
After consulting a copy of Keegan's Second World War, you find that you are in agreement with him that Coventry was not sacrificed by Churchill. However, he DID know it was specifically to be bombed in November 1940, and that the only reason he could not defend it was because the warning time was inadequate. This can be found on the bottom of page 500 of said text (paperback edition).
This should be a lesson to one and all that much of history is subject to interpretation. I perhaps can find books that state emphatically that, yes, Coventry was sacrificed, and provide compelling reasons for this to be so. That can be rectified by a few trips to some libraries if I have the time to do so, and I just might do that, in the interest of knowing more about history.
In the meantime, clicker, I recommend finding out more about the term "source evaluation". You provided me with Wikipedia (something I would get laughed out of academia for bringing into serious discussion) and a website that from all appearances has a vested interest in having Churchill presented in the most positive light possible. Coughing up a city in the name of protecting sources of intelligence, especially in this day and age full of spoiled brats who think that war is apple pie easy with ZERO hard, costly decisions, would not do much to help in that endeavor. Hence I recommend staying away from the Internet for research into historical matters and sticking with books you can easily dissect, as I do.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
clinker
January 19, 2007 - 01:32 ET by misterbillThis may shock you, but if Ms Clinton was on the right committee and thought that I were a security risk, I would welcome her attention. For that matter, even some of te other ninnies (drunkie Ted, College grad JK, male whorehouse barney and all the rest, if they were on committees that prtected our security, again, I would not object. My feelings would be hurt, because I love this country and would not do anything to betray her, but I would understand.
And as to "scaredy pants, I know you are but what am I??
Well, that's kinda the point
January 19, 2007 - 07:33 ET by clickerWell, that's kinda the point too. If Hillary were President, and decided to do it on her own, without telling anyone, including any committees, I would be ticked at her lack of respect for the constitution.
clicker...If there is a perso
January 18, 2007 - 20:26 ET by bigtimerclicker...
If there is a person here within our borders, American or not, collaborating with the enemy that wants us dead, or to hurt our economy in any way, I want that person stopped immediately, getting these FISA warrants takes forever at times, from what I heard on FOX today, the FISA judges have swayed to speed things up as the administration wanted in the first place...we may know more later...as for the left, they have wanted us to lose this fight from the beginning, their hatred for President Bush and his administration and their quest to regain power is all that matters to them, forget about saving anyone's life, including yours and mine.
Every second may count in these times clicker...time is of the essence.
"If we ever forget that we are a Nation Under God....then we will be a Nation Gone Under." Ronald Reagan
Right...
January 18, 2007 - 23:24 ET by clickerRight, right. We hate President Bush sooo much that we want people to die...We want to preserve their privacy rights, but not their right to life. So go ahead and kill them, makes a lot of sense.
Read my post above about 'speeding things up'. Using what you heard on FOX news as a basis for an argument is probably not the best use of your time:
"Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions." Page 14: http://65.109.167.11...
Fear
January 18, 2007 - 23:31 ET by UnsaneWhy this overwhelming, intense, palpable FEAR of one little tiny news channel that MIGHT reach 1% of the American population on a BUSY news day?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
It's the most popular, most w
January 19, 2007 - 00:18 ET by clickerIt's the most popular, most watched cable news channel in the country. If you're not concerned about it's accuracy, why do you read NewsBusters, which is all about critiquing all the other networks?
You act as if Fox News is exe
January 19, 2007 - 00:26 ET by UnsaneYou act as if Fox News is exempt from criticism here. It is not, if you have been reading for awhile. I don't watch them very much; but then, I don't watch much U.S. media anyways. I am sure you'd agree that if you sit around watching PBS and listening to NPR all day, you won't hear one damn thing about what happens outside the United States (except maybe pet Leftist bleeding heart stories like Darfur). Me, I would rather read about what is happening well outside the bounds of the United States. Hence my reading of The Economist. Their world coverage is first rate and the proclaim their biases up front. I don't agree with some of their points and agree with others. But I appreciate the fact that they are very forward with how they believe; it allows me to lower the BS detectors ever so slightly. Other foreign media that I visit include CBC and BBC.
Again, I say you have an overwhelming, intense, palpable FEAR of one little news channel in a market that includes numerous publications, and PBS, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN. I find that to be a little irrational.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
No, I'm saying Fox News deser
January 19, 2007 - 00:45 ET by clickerNo, I'm saying Fox News deserves criticism, just like all other media outlets (more). I do watch a lot of PBS, and listen to a lot of NPR, which gives me a lot more international coverage than any TV news network. But I too need to get outside the U.S. I listen to the BBC news at least an hour every day, usually more. It really changes one's outlook.
No, I do not have an overwhelming, intense, palpable FEAR of Fox News. In fact, it makes me laugh, it's so ridiculous. What I have a fear of is people who actually watch it can't recognize how slanted their coverage and commentary is.
You must have missed us mak
January 19, 2007 - 00:49 ET by Free StinkerYou must have missed us making fun of Bill O'Reilly . . . among others.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"One thing that seperates liberals from conservatives is that liberals are craftier and work without the hinderance of a conscience." --Lynn Wooley
I am not a fan of Sean Hann
January 19, 2007 - 00:53 ET by terrigI am not a fan of Sean Hannity. He's disgusting.
What I find funny & wha
January 19, 2007 - 00:52 ET by terrigWhat I find funny & what I also fear are the people who watch PBS & listen to NPR and can't recognize how slanted their coverage and commentary are. As for BBC, get digital cable. It's on mine and I watch frequently myself. I also love to watch "Keeping Up Appearances". I know that makes me a terrible person in your book.
Commentary...slanted...um, isn't it supposed to be???
January 19, 2007 - 01:09 ET by UnsaneHow slanted their COMMENTARY is? It damn well better be. When I hear Mara Liasson, Alan Colmes, Neal Gabler or Juan Williams opine on something, they better not have linguine spines, or else they are worthless commentators.
Their coverage only appears slanted because they will actually talk to both the Left AND the Right, and they talk to the Right without treating them like...well...Them. Like lepers, or an extraterrestrial race.
Yes, Fox, like anyone else, deserves scrutiny. What exactly is your point?
Indeed, you have an overwhelming, intense, palpable, and quite irrational FEAR of Fox News. If you didn't, why the attempts to ridicule their viewership? If it is such a crappy station, wouldn't the market have seen to it that it would have been "taken out" long ago, like the short lived competitor to Headline News folded six months after its premiere in the early 1980s?
Here's betting that if anyone takes a shot at your beloved PBS or NPR (if they are so damn great they should subject themselves to the mercy of the free markets; at least Fox has the guts to do that!), you will SCREAM like a two year old who just had his toys and candy taken from him.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
APB
January 19, 2007 - 01:47 ET by misterbillOne of our patients has leaped over the wall. He is dangerous to himself only, at this time. He can most probably be found blogging on a conservative site. He believes that conservatives are ignorant and that President Bush is responsible for all chaos in the world. He responds to names like clicker, clinker and similar sounding names. He can raed, but he cannot grasp concepts in what he reads. Please call the Hamlin Psychiatric Hospital in BethPage New York if seen.
One of our doctors has expose
January 19, 2007 - 07:24 ET by clickerOne of our doctors has exposed himself. He can’t spell, but is coherent enough to denounce legitimate criticism about the validity and success of presidential and governmental action and inaction, to ignore factual evidence presented to him, to make wild, unfounded accusations about the blogger’s beliefs, and to obfuscate the blogger’s points by offering personal attacks rather than legitimate counter-arguments. Please call the AMA or your local pharmacist if you take him seriously.
raed =read =typo
January 19, 2007 - 14:56 ET by misterbillraed =read =typo. Clinker you have pierced me to the heart. I am a bit vain about my spelling skills. I will double check any missives directed to you, now and in the future. What is the "factual" evidence? I apologize for the personal attack. I am a bit childish with my humor at times. I was trying to explain that I am one of those who believes that the definition of liberty, in the minds of some people, is more concerned with their own personal liberty (as perceived by them) than in the security and liberty of the common good. I hold that our President is trying to protect our country. I hold that certain actions that are performed do not conform to our everyday peacetime definition of liberty. The Feds are welcome to read my mail or monitor my 'phone calls or internet blogs and email all they wish. I would not have said this prior to 9/11. I think you are more concerned with finding things to cavil about to make this administration look bad than you are concerned with public safety. What I am willing to allow the government to do is far beyond what the President has authorized anyone to do. I would like to stay alive for a few more years.
And reverting to my childishness- =P.
speling nazzi
January 20, 2007 - 06:15 ET by UnsaneYou DO realize that once you denounce one's spelling on NB, you have lost the argument, yes?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
HAV3
January 20, 2007 - 06:17 ET by acaiguanaHAV3 ---
And in that vein...
:-)
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
If you want to give grammar
January 20, 2007 - 06:30 ET by Jack BauerIf you want to give grammar lessons, try expressing yourself cogently.
A rambling fifty-four word sentence is evidence of a disorganized mind. It also demonstrates a poor use of English.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
Jack, you 'counted' all those wrods???
January 20, 2007 - 06:37 ET by acaiguanaJack, you 'counted' all those wrods???
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
aca -- ha, yes I did!! Groa
January 20, 2007 - 06:45 ET by Jack Baueraca -- ha, yes I did!! Graon, (or it is groan) how sad is that.
I do love it when ill-educated leftoids insist on attacking the grammar of others.
Maybe I missed it, but I have yet to see a conservative go after a troll here just because they made a typo.
Yet we get a regular flow of trolls who suffer from a delusion that they are somehow more "educated" than the poor NB "rubes."
It's very amusing.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
It's a bit odd, and I'm bored, but counting the word (wrods)??
January 20, 2007 - 06:48 ET by acaiguanaIt's a bit odd, and I'm bored, but counting the word (wrods)??
:-)
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
clicker's elitism
January 20, 2007 - 15:14 ET by UnsaneIt is fitting. clicker definitely counts himself as an elitist snob; note his crowing over the alleged superiority of the PBS/NPR viewers/listeners over those poor rubes who watch Fox.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
January 19, 2007 - 07:25 ET by clicker
aj
Clicker, where do you get your info besides pbs & npr? toliet?
January 18, 2007 - 23:31 ET by terrigSpeaking of the best use of time, I am curious as to where you get your information from? NPR & PBS are really not the "best sources" for information either unless you Hate President Bush which you probably do. I would venture a guess you would have a serious problem with "privacy rights" being violated but what if you're walking down the street or one of your beloved family members get on a plane and the last thing they hear is "Allah Akbar", maybe you'll change your mind. It's obvious as far as right to life goes, you don't care if they're not born yet, they don't matter but a terrorists-now that is a different story. He has a family that loves him or her. Yes, we must protect the terrrorists so you can puff out your chest and say what a great person you are.
Umm...
January 18, 2007 - 23:42 ET by clickerI get my information from the links I've provided in my posts. As far as what I believe, keep on guessing... Your post is more about bashing me than responding to my arguments.
Well, trying not to hurt your
January 18, 2007 - 23:47 ET by terrigWell, trying not to hurt your liberal sensibilities but it's always interesting to me that types like you believe that we shouldn't be listening to folks who are calling outside of this country perhaps to places like Iran, Syria, etc. Of course you deign to criticize me because I think you're nothing but a big headed, spoiled, little liberal brat who believe everthing you're fed by NPR & PBS. I find you funny. I just love though to ask libs why it's so important to give terrorists their rights but not unborn children. Part of my schtick so to say. Never answered though how you would feel if loved one died and they had a "line" on something but waited for FISA and loved one could have been saved? It's a hypothetical I know but I hope that you would say you know you're loved one died while protecting the rights of those who may want to kill us. We may never know if they really could have stopped them. But you won't.
FISA allows for warrants afte
January 18, 2007 - 23:50 ET by balboaFISA allows for warrants after the fact, right?
Yes, they do Balboa but I was
January 18, 2007 - 23:51 ET by terrigYes, they do Balboa but I was just egging on the little liberal because all of his links come from "think progress" which isn't the best source of info either.
So you're more concerned abou
January 18, 2007 - 23:58 ET by clickerSo you're more concerned about egging me on than discussing the issues. Great. Have fun. Show me an example where ThinkProgress was in error that they didn't correct. I'll let them know.
Well, CLicker like most lib
January 19, 2007 - 00:35 ET by terrigWell, CLicker like most liberals you're very sensitve about you're preceived being "egged on". I just would like for one liberal to tell me why it is so important for terrorists to have rights? You give the same old schtick that "well, this country is better than that" and when I ask how you'd feel about your loved one being killed you don't answer. As for your links, I looked at them but I'll be honest with you, I don't buy any of it. You probably went out and watched "Out FOxed" and thought it deserved an Oscar. I don't know, nor do I care. I will tell you this, you and your ilk who listen to NPR & PBS ad nauseum are no better than those who you say waste their time watching Fox. Most of us do watch other things then Fox & I will admit that when I lived on the mainland I liked to listen to the classical music NPR would play while driving down I-95 as it was very soothing when having to deal with idiots on the road. I just think it's funny that libs find the rights of those who would do us harm to be the most important thing in the world. I would prefer to be safe and don't hand me the "those who give up liberty for security deserve none" line because no one is really giving up liberty unless it's someone calling outside this country to a place such as Syria or something.
Hey, clicker, take me on. Riddle me this? Why should I guess?
January 18, 2007 - 23:52 ET by acaiguanaHey, clicker, take me on. Riddle me this? Why should I guess?
What you believe?
huh?
ACA
...
Acaiguana says: "I love blind Monkeys and any inference that I am making fun of blind Monkeys would be wrong.
clicker, A little off topic
January 18, 2007 - 23:38 ET by hydrodynDMclicker,
A little off topic, but I just saw an interesting pole on TV. The questions - Do you hope President Bush's new plan for Iraq works? Thankfully, about 64% said yes, but 22% actually said no. The rest had the predictable "I don't know" response.
I'd be willing to bet that most of that 22% consists of liberal Bush haters. In which case, yes, a reasonably large percent of those on the left do hate the president so much that they are willing to hope for an outcome that would result in deaths.
Poll
January 18, 2007 - 23:47 ET by clickerWhere did you see this poll? I honestly want to look at it. I'd be willing to bet that most of the 22% are just the nutcases or the people who don't get the question that you always get in non-scientific polls.
clicker, I actually figured
January 18, 2007 - 23:56 ET by hydrodynDMclicker,
I actually figured you would ask - I'll see if I can dig it up. But I'm going offline in a bit (it's almost 11pm here) so I might post it here or PM it to you tomorrow (it that's cool).
I'll check back. Thanks.
January 19, 2007 - 00:00 ET by clickerI'll check back. Thanks.
clicker, Here's the link -
January 19, 2007 - 00:27 ET by hydrodynDMclicker,
Here's the link - it's to a pdf of the raw data for a Fox News pole - which means, of course, you are free to dismiss it as completely made up or tampered with in some way.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/011807_foxnewspoll.pdf
The question I was referring to is Question 19 on page 6.
You have it!!!
January 19, 2007 - 01:34 ET by misterbill"Right, right. We hate President Bush sooo much that we want people to die...We want to preserve their privacy rights, but not their right to life. So go ahead and kill them, makes a lot of sense."
I honestly believe a far left Bush hater like you would be willing to sacrifice a few Americans so long as it could be blamed on Bush.
Well, what can I say other th
January 19, 2007 - 07:39 ET by clickerWell, what can I say other than, you're wrong. (And maybe a little crazy?)
hold on, clicker
January 19, 2007 - 14:46 ET by tumbler_2007Just one thing:
Don't judge the rest of this discussion by what this dude says. He can say all the conservative shibboleths just fine. Nevertheless, he IS crazy.
I really need the Dems and th
January 18, 2007 - 17:02 ET by TyromacI really need the Dems and the networks to get to work on my phone bill. My calls to Europe keep showing up as "international" calls on the bill. Maybe ABC can do one of those big exposes on how the phone companies are ripping us all off for our "domestic" calls overseas.
the american public knows com
January 17, 2007 - 21:39 ET by buddycthe american public knows competence when they see it. that is why not many people watch this dupe. he gives me the impression that he is light in the brain department.
Gibson , Couric and the rest
January 17, 2007 - 23:00 ET by replayGibson , Couric and the rest of their ilk need to publicly choose sides. Say who you are for Katie and Charles! I know who you are for but I would love to hear you admit to it.
Email address to World News h
January 17, 2007 - 23:08 ET by sembyEmail address to World News
http://abc.go.com/site/contactus.html?cat=World%20News%20Tonight
Email your disgust; it matters!
I did but not sure it reall
January 17, 2007 - 23:28 ET by terrigI did but not sure it really helps any. I don't even think they look at this stuff or else their interns trash anything that roles in negative.
Tony Snow needs to be out f
January 17, 2007 - 23:58 ET by JPninerTony Snow needs to be out front calling them out on this tommorrow, and straight up call them partisian hacks, which is what they are. I don't think the Administration realizes just how important this is, paticularly with their base.
...
January 18, 2007 - 19:24 ET by JnobleLook at the ABC graphic....they need to update their stock footage, that phone is from, what, 1982?
LAWSUIT ALERT! CBS airing random phone numbers
January 18, 2007 - 20:42 ET by Six String SpiffOk folks, am I the only one who finds it strange that the oh so smart folk at CBS have random phone numbers in the background of their broadcast as you can see in this thread's pic? You know if that was MY phone number, I'd be pissed.. GET MY DRIFT? "Nudge Nudge Wink Wink. Say no more" Remember Jim Carey's movie where he was God for a week or something? (Bruce almighty..?)The producer of the movie had an ACTUAL phone number as "Gods phone number" Retards called it and expected to speak to the creator, and got a dentists office or something. They ended up suing the makers of the movie. nudge nudge...
Sure, I watch the MSM... Through a pair of crosshairs.
Spaceman, I think CBS actuall
January 18, 2007 - 20:52 ET by JABSpaceman, I think CBS actually covered their bases on this one. Those numbers did not appear legit to me (due to 25 years in the telephone industry), so I called them, all were disconnected/wrong numbers.
I Did not mean to sink your battleship you were on a good train of thought.
"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful to the Ignorant"
PHone Numbers
January 18, 2007 - 20:55 ET by Six String SpiffHmmm You had the guts to call em eh? I guess.. why not. The MSM has done dumber things. They will slip. My finger is always on the trigger...
Sure, I watch the MSM... Through a pair of crosshairs.
How ya been SS?"If we ev
January 18, 2007 - 21:00 ET by bigtimerHow ya been SS?
"If we ever forget that we are a Nation Under God....then we will be a Nation Gone Under." Ronald Reagan
Hello Bigtimer!
January 18, 2007 - 21:12 ET by Six String SpiffOh, fine. fine. I have finally settled down from the reps taking a beating. I have been studying up on Alvin Lee's master guitar style. Busy at work. I have been assisting engineers with failure analysis of some of my circuit boards I repair. Been doing more dancing with my Fiance. She bought some DVD's that we can practice with in the living room. yay? :-) Dealing with Deval Rodham Clinton Patrick... BIG SIGH... I have just about given up on the republicans in congress. Property taxes going up here in MA (SURPRISE!). Looking for a house is difficult to say the least when you aren't financially perfect. What else.. OH! I saw the Trans Siberian Orchestra.. WWWWOOOWW! Some true talent right there. On Blondes advice, I am actively looking for a community school or something to begin some prerequisits for an engineering course in electronics. Hows by you BT? I know I haven't been on here in a while. I haven't forgot about you awesome people.
Sure, I watch the MSM... Through a pair of crosshairs.
Good for ya...I'll PM you soo
January 18, 2007 - 21:22 ET by bigtimerGood for you...I'll PM you soon, like we used to now and then, some questions I want to ask...you always seem to disappear when I say howdy, may have missed you here and there...lol! Glad B is helping ya out...more than you know.
"If we ever forget that we are a Nation Under God....then we will be a Nation Gone Under." Ronald Reagan
Mama BT
January 18, 2007 - 21:33 ET by Six String SpiffYeah.. I know what you mean about missing eachother on the site. I have a bit more responsibilty now at work. Then, when I get home, I just want to kick back and make my strings sing. Some of my blind political optimism has vanished as a result of these past elections. It was rude awakening. (Not to mention that case of beer Ihad to buy my friend on tha wager :-)) Something that might interest you. Being that my Father and I have started an apple orchard in ME, he has been brewing some homemade apple wine. GOOD STUFF!
Sure, I watch the MSM... Through a pair of crosshairs.
Agreeded spaceman, do not let
January 18, 2007 - 21:03 ET by JABAgreeded spaceman, do not let them have any slack.
Like I said the numbers looked fake with my back ground, so I called them; besides that if someone answered you just politely tell them "I must have dialed the wrong number", with confirmation in hand.
"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful to the Ignorant"
Crosshairs
January 18, 2007 - 20:54 ET by StanManKeep CBS in your crosshairs, man!
There's nothing worse than a leftist network that sees themselves as fair and balanced!