55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 07:36 pm
This is simply too hilarious and deeply ironic to pass by.


Quote:


On Fox News, Rove and Ingraham Criticize MSNBC For Blurring The 'Line Between News And Commentary'

Last night, Karl Rove appeared on Fox News's "The O'Reilly Factor" to discuss President Bush's interview with NBC and accusations that the network distorted Bush's comments. Rove and guest host Laura Ingraham quickly attacked NBC's ethics:

INGRAHAM: Yes, well, Karl, this follows on, you know, on primary nights, big nights, when you're with Brit and everybody here. Over at NBC, they have a couple of their, you know, commentator types Matthews and the like, sitting next to Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams. I mean, there is no line between news and commentary. It's all blurred.

http://thinkprogress.org/

0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 08:45 pm
JTT wrote:
This is AMERICAN CONSERVATISM at its finest.

Trumpet away, Foxy.


Quote:


Stafford Smith: US Holding 27,000 in Secret Overseas Prisons; Transporting Prisoners to Iraqi Jails to Avoid Media & Legal Scrutiny

"There is a huge number of [secret prisoners] being held in Iraq, and one of the intriguing aspects of this that doesn't get much reporting is that the US is bringing people into Iraq from elsewhere to hold them there, simply because that keeps [the media and lawyers] away from the prisoners so they can't get any sort of legal rights," reports British attorney Clive Stafford Smith.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/19/clive_stafford_smith


This **** gets my blood hot.
K
O
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 09:25 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
JTT wrote:
This is AMERICAN CONSERVATISM at its finest.

Trumpet away, Foxy.


Quote:


Stafford Smith: US Holding 27,000 in Secret Overseas Prisons; Transporting Prisoners to Iraqi Jails to Avoid Media & Legal Scrutiny

"There is a huge number of [secret prisoners] being held in Iraq, and one of the intriguing aspects of this that doesn't get much reporting is that the US is bringing people into Iraq from elsewhere to hold them there, simply because that keeps [the media and lawyers] away from the prisoners so they can't get any sort of legal rights," reports British attorney Clive Stafford Smith.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/19/clive_stafford_smith


This **** gets my blood hot.
K
O


As it should, TKO, for any human being with even a modicum of common sense.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 10:35 pm
McCain should not run from Bush. He should simply point out that Bush has done some good things, then point them out, then point out where he came short, and where we can do differently or improve.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 10:43 pm
okie wrote:
He should simply point out that Bush has done some good things, ...


Talk about a short list.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 11:11 pm
JTT wrote:
okie wrote:
He should simply point out that Bush has done some good things, ...


Talk about a short list.


Well, lessee, he gave 25 million Afghanis the right to vote for their own leaders.

He gave 25 million Iraqis the right to vote for their own leaders also.

If Obama had been President, Saddam Hussein would still be in power filling mass graves with his political enemies, ignoring multiple UN resolutions and violating the Gulf War cease fire , working on plans to reconstitute his chemical and biological weapons (like the ones he used against thousands of his own citizens)

Admit it.

Hussein would still be doing what he was doing if 'Present' Obama had occupied the Oval office for the past eight years.

Saddam is dead and gone due to his own duplicity and stubbornness. He outfoxed himself.

He wanted Iran to think he had WMDs and deceived the intelligence services of the world so that they would think so.

Saddam lied , people died.

I know you mourn his passing, but most of us don't.

Had Obama been President , the world would be a much more dangerous place.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2008 11:49 pm
okie wrote:
McCain should not run from Bush. He should simply point out that Bush has done some good things, then point them out, then point out where he came short, and where we can do differently or improve.



Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz Razz
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2008 09:49 pm
Quote:


republican problem solving handbook

when confronted with a 'problem' choose several activities from the list below:

ignore it
exploit it
deny it
if asked about it at the beach, say 'talk to the sand'
create intricate web of lies about it
blindly support nutjob president
discuss it with your secret family
declare war on it, call it The War on (the problem)
build a fence around it
give yourself a cool undercover spy name
add three levels of corruption to it

[more at,]

http://ristocrats.blogspot.com/2008/05/republican-problem-solving-handbook.html

0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 05:24 pm
JTT wrote:
Quote:


republican problem solving handbook

when confronted with a 'problem' choose several activities from the list below:

ignore it
exploit it
deny it
if asked about it at the beach, say 'talk to the sand'
create intricate web of lies about it
blindly support nutjob president
discuss it with your secret family
declare war on it, call it The War on (the problem)
Like the dems "war on drugs" or the dems "war on poverty"?

build a fence around it
So now building a fence round your property is wrong?
give yourself a cool undercover spy name
add three levels of corruption to it

[more at,]

http://ristocrats.blogspot.com/2008/05/republican-problem-solving-handbook.html

0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 06:27 pm
JTT wrote:
This is simply too hilarious and deeply ironic to pass by.


Quote:


On Fox News, Rove and Ingraham Criticize MSNBC For Blurring The 'Line Between News And Commentary'

Last night, Karl Rove appeared on Fox News's "The O'Reilly Factor" to discuss President Bush's interview with NBC and accusations that the network distorted Bush's comments. Rove and guest host Laura Ingraham quickly attacked NBC's ethics:

INGRAHAM: Yes, well, Karl, this follows on, you know, on primary nights, big nights, when you're with Brit and everybody here. Over at NBC, they have a couple of their, you know, commentator types Matthews and the like, sitting next to Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams. I mean, there is no line between news and commentary. It's all blurred.

http://thinkprogress.org/


Meanwhile, the White House has webbed a statement in which it describes its side of the NBC matter. At the end of it, it links to both the edited and the unedited version of the NBC interview. Instead of emanating hot air, everyone can now compare the two versions and judge for themselves whether Bush has been distorted or not.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 09:46 pm
Then again,

Quote:


The President versus the Peacock

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, May 20, 2008; 1:00 PM

...

It doesn't take a trained psychologist to observe that Bush got angrier and angrier as the Engel interview went on. That obviously had nothing to do with the editing; it had to do with Engel's questions.

Bush typically sits down with interviewers from Fox News -- or, more recently, Politico-- where he can count on more than his share of ingratiating softballs. But Engel, a fluent Arabic speaker who has logged more time in Iraq than any other television correspondent, assertively confronted Bush with the ramifications of his actions in the Middle East.

For instance, Engel noted: "A lot of Iran's empowerment is a result of the war in Iraq." He questioned Bush about his lack of an exit strategy in Iraq: "So it doesn't sound like there's an end anytime soon." He clearly upset Bush by saying that "on the ground," the situation in Iraq "looks very bleak." (Bush replied: "Well, that's interesting you said that -- that's a little different from the surveys I've seen and a little different from the attitude of the actual Iraqis I've talked to, but you're entitled to your opinion.")

He also challenged Bush on his legacy: "f you look back over the last several years, the Middle East that you'll be handing over to the next President is deeply problematic:

...

So is it a stretch to suspect that Bush told his counselor to get a little revenge?

The other essential bit of context is the ferocious, high-profile campaign being orchestrated by Fox News star Bill O'Reilly, Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes and News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch against NBC and its cable channel, MSNBC. Just in case that had escaped the White House's attention before, a front-page Washington Post story by Howard Kurtz yesterday noted, among other things, that O'Reilly "routinely assails NBC . . . as an organization that 'spews out far-left propaganda,' is 'the most aggressive anti-Bush network' and is 'in the tank' for Barack Obama."

Gillespie was clearly unloading more than a little pent-up frustration with NBC. Though his letter opened by decrying what he called the "deceitful editing" of the Engel interview, he quickly added a litany of other complaints:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/05/20/BL2008052001263_2.html

0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 10:12 pm
Thomas wrote:
Meanwhile, the White House has webbed a statement in which it describes its side of the NBC matter. At the end of it, it links to both the edited and the unedited version of the NBC interview. Instead of emanating hot air, everyone can now compare the two versions and judge for themselves whether Bush has been distorted or not.

Since I'm too lazy to go look, what's your take?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2008 10:21 pm
Quote:


Methodist Ministers Launch PR Campaign To Stop Bush Library At SMU

Earlier this month, at the United Methodist Church's (UMC) Quadrennial General Conference, the UMC's governing body, voted overwhelmingly - 844 to 20 �- to refer a petition to its South Central Jurisdiction. The petition urges the rejection of President Bush's presidential library which is set to be housed at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

...

Indeed, opponents have cause for concern that the institute will ignore the realities of Bush's eight years in office. Advisers to the library said the "think tank" will "rely chiefly" on a design firm, rather than historians, to showcase Bush's policies as president.

http://thinkprogress.org/

0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 06:18 am
nimh wrote:
Thomas wrote:
Meanwhile, the White House has webbed a statement in which it describes its side of the NBC matter. At the end of it, it links to both the edited and the unedited version of the NBC interview. Instead of emanating hot air, everyone can now compare the two versions and judge for themselves whether Bush has been distorted or not.

Since I'm too lazy to go look, what's your take?

That the White House's objection is justified. NBC did obscure what Bush said by messing up the context. And when you restore the context, and Bush's remarks were fairly harmless. There's plenty of reasons Bush should be impeached, but this particular interview is not one of them.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 May, 2008 06:39 am
Thomas wrote:
nimh wrote:
Since I'm too lazy to go look, what's your take?

That the White House's objection is justified. NBC did obscure what Bush said by messing up the context. And when you restore the context, and Bush's remarks were fairly harmless. There's plenty of reasons Bush should be impeached, but this particular interview is not one of them.

Cool, thanks. I didnt feel like looking through this myself, and trust your judgement on it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2008 12:29 pm
The Democrats have taken aim at Wal-mart as one of the nation's big evil corporation entities. I receive occasional questionnaires from Zogy asking my opinion on everything from state and national elections to international affairs to my preference in wireless telephone companies. But on every single questionnaire, no matter what the subject, there is a recurring question wanting to know how often I shop at Wal-Mart. Why Wal-Mart? I can only figure that they are being set up to be targeted by somebody.

Anyhow here is the latest on how this 'evil corporation' is holding down food prices:

May 29, 2008
Wal-Mart puts the squeeze on food costs
The retailer is using its clout with vendors to hold onto its everyday low prices.
By Suzanne Kapner, writer

(Fortune Magazine) -- With gas, grain, and dairy prices exploding, you'd think the biggest seller of corn flakes and Cocoa Puffs would be getting hit by rising food costs. But Wal-Mart has temporarily rolled back prices on hundreds of food items by as much as 30% this year. How? By pressuring vendors to take costs out of the supply chain.

"When our grocery suppliers bring price increases, we don't just accept them," says Pamela Kohn, Wal-Mart's general merchandise manager for perishables. To be sure, Wal-Mart (WMT, Fortune 500) isn't the only retailer working to cut fat from the food chain, but as the largest grocer - Wal-Mart's food and consumables revenue is nearly $100 billion - it has a disproportionate amount of leverage. Here's how the retailer is throwing its weight around.

Shrink the goods. Ever wonder why that cereal box is only two-thirds full? Foodmakers love big boxes because they serve as billboards on store shelves. Wal-Mart has been working to change that by promising suppliers that their shelf space won't shrink even if their boxes do. As a result, some of its vendors have reengineered their packaging. General Mills' (GIS, Fortune 500) Hamburger Helper is now made with denser pasta shapes, allowing the same amount of food to fit into a 20% smaller box at the same price. The change has saved 890,000 pounds of paper fiber and eliminated 500 trucks from the road, giving General Mills a cushion to absorb some of the rising costs.

Cut out the middleman. Wal-Mart typically buys its brand-name coffee from a supplier, which buys from a cooperative of growers, which works with a roaster - which means "there are a whole bunch of people muddled in the middle," says Wal-Mart spokeswoman Tara Raddohl. In April the chain began buying directly from a cooperative of Brazilian coffee farmers for its Sam's Choice brand, cutting three or four steps out of the supply chain.

Go locovore. Wal-Mart has been going green, but not entirely for the reasons you might think. By sourcing more produce locally - it now sells Wisconsin-grown yellow corn in 56 stores in or near Wisconsin - it is able to cut shipping costs. "We are looking at how to reduce the number of miles our suppliers' trucks travel," says Kohn. Marc Turner, whose Bushwick Potato Co. supplies Wal-Mart stores in the Northeast, says the cost of shipping one truck of spuds from his farm in Maine to local Wal-Mart stores costs less than $1,000, compared with several thousand dollars for a big rig from Idaho. Last year his shipments to Wal-Mart grew 13%.

In fact, it's the small suppliers that are feeling the pain from Wal-Mart's pushback the most. Bushwick has seen its costs rise 10% over the past year, but has passed only half that amount on to Wal-Mart and its other retailers. For consumers who are having a hard time paying $3.80 for a gallon of milk, however, without those measures that sticker shock would be a lot worse.
CNN LINK
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 May, 2008 06:02 pm
"...the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not. . . . would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."-- Thomas Jefferson

Hardly, Thomas.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2008 03:14 pm
This isn't really on topic, but was too funny to not post somewhere:

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/cb0602wj.jpg
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2008 03:24 pm
JTT wrote:
"...the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not. . . . would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."-- Thomas Jefferson

Hardly, Thomas.


My apologies, Thomas. T'warn't you.

Hardly, Foxy.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2008 07:42 pm
Gee, I was pretty sure Thomas thought he said that. It has been attributed to him as documented in the permanent record:

SEE HERE
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 09/19/2024 at 09:49:01