2
   

Liberal media? I’m shocked!

 
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 11:07 pm
Finn, to play your in little sandbox, one must certainly define "liberal" in the context of what the media presents. But you didn't, which allows you to worm around the issue like a maggot around meat.

Quote:
This is a good explanation for why the quality of journalism (print and TV) is eroding, but it proves nothing relative to whether or not there is, generally, a liberal bias running through the news media.

The best explanation as to why the quality of print media and broadcast journalism would be eroding is the increased rate and breadth of the stifling of real news reporting in support of corporatist & statist ideologies and profits over the presenting the contextual truth to the public audiences.

That which makes immediate or long term financial problems for the owners of the news media organs is not aired, and there is ample evidence of this in the media.

There was virtually no discussion in the major media outlets about the problems inherent in the recent consolidation of media corporations or the selling off of the broadband wavelengths by the FCC in the late 1990's to these multinationals, and the reason was that those same media outlets were going to gain so much from the implementation of those laws and the less said in public about it the better for them and their bottom line.

Amongst other nefarious things allowed to multinational corporations by the TCA of 1996, these entities quite quietly were able to license from the government broadband width that was dramatically under fair market price, let alone that they were increasing the percentage of the mass media market these few multinational conglomerates control.

Did you ever even hear of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.pdf ) and subsequent legislation which gave away for a pittance the broadband airwaves to multinational media conglomerates, or allows one company to own both a majority of the newspapers and radio stations in a particular town?

You think that government has no place in regulating a process that allows that to happen? It is hardly an admirable example of free market competition when there is no competing voice.

Quote:
There are at least two flawed premises to the conclusion of Chomsky's argument:

That an "uncomfortable" viewer will cease to watch a particular program, or that an "uncomfortable advertiser" will cease to sponsor it.


"Uncomfortable" is when ABC News is directed by their parent owners, the Disney Corporation, not to air news programs that cast Disney in a bad light, regardless of the timeliness and truthfulness of the news reporting.

"Uncomfortable" is when NBC News is directed by their parent owners, General Electric not to air news programs that cast nuclear power in a bad light or discuss military program cost over-runs , because General Electric owns nuclear power plants and those same armament companies that were responsible for the cost over-runs, regardless of the timeliness and truthfulness of the news reporting.

"Uncomfortable" is when CBS News pulls 60 Minutes programs on the health risks of tobacco because they will lose advertising from non-tobacco product advertisers whose companies are actually owned by tobacco companies like Nabisco, regardless of the timeliness and truthfulness of the news reporting.

"Uncomfortable" is when the PBS show Frontline pulls a program on energy price gouging by international oil companies because PBS has been told it will lose donations from oil companies if it airs the allegations, regardless of the timeliness and truthfulness of the news reporting.

So, who is bull$hiting whom here?

It is not even within the penumbra of "uncomfortable" for the media owners for you to suggest that it covers a situation where someone gets pissed off at a Bill O' Reilly and writes Dominos Pizza to demand that they stop advertising on O' Reilly's show or the viewer will stop buying pizza.

Quote:
I'm sure Chomsky chose the term "uncomfortable" to underscore how timid media corporation may be when it comes to even possibly putting their profits in peril, but the truth is that simple discomfort is not enough to drive away viewers or advertisers.


You don't seem to understand the roll of the "press" in this society. It is, and always has been used by those who own the microphones to set the tone and landscape of the popular debate. It is in the business of, as Walter Lippman described over 75 years ago, "manufacturing the consent" of the masses to conform to the wishes of those who hold the economic and political power in the country.

Its why the owner of a major American news paper chain ordered in the fall of 2000 (yes, that right wing weirdo Richard Mellonhead Sciafe) that all of his newspapers would only print pictures of George Bush on the front page of his papers and relegate Al Gore pictures to the inside of the newspaper.

I would trust that even you find this a misapplication of the inherent power of the press as we would hope it functions.

Quote:
The second flawed premise is that a liberal bias in the media creates something more than simple annoyance in viewers - assuming they even perceive it. His argument is that since a liberal bias would drive viewers and advertisers away in droves, the media corporations would never allow it, and thus there is no liberal bias.


No, that is not what Chomsky is saying at all. What he states is plain to understand and is not subject to sophist distortions. Chomsky mentions no liberal bias at all. He states clearly that the information is skewed towards satisfying those who pay the bills to the media outlets, not the ultimate consumer of the news. It is simply the nature of the corporate structure that owns the major media outlets to do so.

Quote:
When a liberally biased product is the only one available, does the viewer/reader who is not content swear off news? Of course not. As long as the product is not obvious propaganda, they'll grit their teeth and accept it as the only easily available source.


There you go again. Define "liberal bias" when reporting the news. Is it out and out lying about the issues or is it just that you don't want to hear the pertinent facts of the situation because it undermines your pre-conceived notions?

The very definition of liberal is open-mindedness and the ability to invest in a search for the truth, not as you describe as an ideology that distorts the truth in an effort to undermine conservatives, God or country.

It is only when "uncomfortable" facts are presented that run counter to conservative ideologies and prejudices that the right wing shouts "liberal bias."

Quote:
If reporters are allowing their bias to color their reporting, why wouldn't editors allow their bias to color their editing?


Actually, being human, both may do that. But the latter make the call on what is aired and printed, so they, not "liberal" reporters are the major decision-makers of what is considered to be "news" and these are people who have risen in corporations by obeying the corporate rules that support the status quo. Maverick reporters do not get to be editors. Only those who conform to the corporate line get such jobs, and such people are hardly promoting liberalism on their way up the corporate ladder, unless you now want to profess that liberalism is supportive of corporatism.

Quote:
I don't know why liberals won't just honestly exult that they have engineered remarkable victories by establishing a controlling influence if not direct control over the new media in general, public education in total, social services of every stripe, the movie industry, and the Methodist and Episcopalian churches.


Why? Its pretty simple actually; your remarks do not conform to objective reality. The managers of the major news outlets do not hold as sacrosanct their liberalism, if they have it at all. No, instead, like businessmen everywhere, they are concerned about making a profit. These people are participants in running huge corporations, where profit motive drives them. They are not in charge of underground printing presses where they hand out free newspapers on the street corner in Soho.

Public education you say? Liberal bias? You must mean such liberal bias as requiring the use of scientific method, evolutionary biology, and the teaching of Darwinian Theory where critical and objective analysis is the norm not the exception.

Social services? Where the hell were you this last decade? Under Bill Clinton the Welfare Reform Act of 1995 changed completely welfare as we know it and the bill was passed over the vociferous objections of every congressional liberal Democrat, while almost ever Republican in Congress supported it. Just what the hell are you talking about? You can't just make things up as you go along so as to lend some sort of phantom-like support for your pet and unproven theories.

The movie industry? Is this some sort of International/Hollywood Jewish conspiracy you bespeak of? These movie moguls are out to make money not converts. If they could make money off of films that show paint drying, they would buy Sherwin-Wiliams, lock, stock and paint brush. The only ideology that drives Hollywood is the pursuit of money.

And lastly the Methodists and Episcopalians? What the hell is this? Some sort of attack on them because many leaders in those churches don't think that the message of Jesus is best served by invading Iraq and killing thousands of innocent civilians or denying homosexuals full rights under the law?

No one, not even the oft debunked Bernie Goldberg, can point to a concerted effort by so-called liberal media reporters to falsify the truth in effort to promote a liberal agenda. Such actions of distortion for ideological purposes are the modus operendi of the right wing, not liberals, and you proved this by your own blatant distortions of the truth on this thread.
0 Replies
 
septembri
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 11:38 pm
Kuvasz is quite erudite. He speaks of arcane issues like the 1996 FCC decision on something or other. But he still has not addressed the key questions:

Is the New York Times( called the "paper of record" and quoted in almost every major newspaper in the United States) really a conservative leaning paper rather than a liberal leaning newspaper?

Is the Washington Post( probably the second mostr influential paper in the USA) really a conservative leaning paper rather than a liberal leaning one?

Is Dan Rather really a conservative?

Peter Jennings? Tom Brokaw?
0 Replies
 
septembri
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 11:44 pm
Kuvasz is quite erudite. He speaks of arcane issues like the 1996 FCC decision on something or other. But he still has not addressed the key questions:

Is the New York Times( called the "paper of record" and quoted in almost every major newspaper in the United States) really a conservative leaning paper rather than a liberal leaning newspaper?

Is the Washington Post( probably the second mostr influential paper in the USA) really a conservative leaning paper rather than a liberal leaning one?

Is Dan Rather really a conservative?

Peter Jennings? Tom Brokaw?
0 Replies
 
septembri
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jun, 2004 11:50 pm
I had forgotten about the infamous vote in 1996 so I checked it out. I am sure that Kuvasz knows that Only 6 Democrats in the Senate voted against this bad bill. I am sure it could not have been so evil since the moral conscience of the Senate, Ted( Chappaquiddick) Kennedy and the plagiarist Joe Biden voted for it.

If Ted Kennedy voted for it, I am afraid that Kuvasz is mistaken. It could not have been a bill that was not helpful to the "downtrodden".
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 01:57 am
Quote:
Kuvasz pointed out( and he is correct) that there is no documentation( no empirical evidence) that such a personal philosophy would lead to a massive skewing of the news. Kuvasz is demanding proof beyond the shadow of a doubt.


No, I did not ask for evidence beyond of shadow of a doubt, and you know it. I asked for documentation that most liberal reporters knowingly lie in effort to promote a liberal agenda. This is the inherent allegation that flows from right-wingers like you when posting the Pew report. Otherwise, all that the "liberal" reporters are doing is reporting the truths you do not want to hear.

If they are lying, prove it. If they are not lying, why is your ilk so upset?

Quote:
I, likewise, demand, empirical proof. I demand empirical proof that President Bush told lies when he commented on the presence of WMD's in Iraq. Of course, I define a lie as defined in Black's Law Dictionary.


Sorry that syllogism won't hunt. Better to train that demand for empirical proof requirements on Bush and WMD, because there is no proof of them. When Bush/Cheney stated that Americans have to worry about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and a mushroom cloud over American cities, some empirical proof is necessary for having such claims not called outright lies.

You see, in the real world, the adult world, one has to prove that which one says is true, and not that another has to prove it false.

And there is no proof that what Bush/Cheney said was true. Just ask David Kay, the man Bush appointed to find the WMDs in Iraq says there were not any WMDs in Iraq when the US invaded that country.

Bush lied. To prove he did not, just show the evidence of the WMD.

Bush can't, so he lied about them.

As to other lies of George Bush? There are too many to list here, but just two, pertinent to this topic of Bush/Iraq. Twice, once at the White House and in the presence of the UN Secretary General and then again in Warsaw in front of the Polish prime minister he said that Saddam kicked out of Iraq the UN nuclear weapons inspectors and that such action forced Bush's hand in attacking Iraq. Twice he said this and twice he lied.

Is this man so stupid as to say this or does he really think that the facts do not matter?

Both of us know what Bush said was a lie. So how come you are not pointing to such statements and call Bush a Liar?

And both of us know why you do not. You do not care at all about the truth if it gets in the way of your warped ideologies.

And this actually is the very worst trait of your ilk; the blatant, continual refusal to accept the facts when they get in the way of your preconceptions.

Mental health care professionals consider this a sign of mental illness, yet you right wing yahoos wear it as a badge of honor. Go figure.

Quote:
Now, those who demand proof beyond the shadow of a doubt are hoist on their own petard when they accuse the media of a conservative bias.


What are you talking about? There is a distinct difference between the works of so-called liberal news journalists who have their work passed thru the filter of corporate editors and news directors, versus corporate broadcast companies who broadcast news in a manner to benefit corporatism and their own pockets.

These things are not even apples versus oranges. They are apples versus walruses.

Quote:
Those of us who read the news and the Pew Report who do not demand proof beyond the shadow of a doubt, come to the common sense conclusion that people( who, after all, earn their living writing) are very likely to infuse their writing with their personal philosophies if only in the adjectives, adverbs and verbs they use.


Still you present no proof, but your own "common sense conclusion" that the news reports presented by the majority of so-called Liberals are slanted towards a liberal agenda, whatever the hell that is in the first place. Yours is actually a response to not liking it when you have your pet theories, unsubstantiated, and prejudiced opinions undermined by the facts.

Yours is yet another infantile rant and such a typical right wing knee jerk reaction from your ilk; attack the messenger when you do not like the message.

You do recognize that no reporter writes stories and has them printed or aired without having them reviewed by a corporate manger with the title of "editor" or news director?"

Quote:
Kuvasz excoriates the corporations for not allowing stories about the dangers of "nuclear power".

I am very much afraid that the last movie Kuvasz viewed was the scary one about nuclear power with Jane Fonda( of all people). Nuclear power is much much safer today and contributes to far less pollution than coal burners( even if they are scrubbed) and automobiles.


Here's a quarter. Go buy a clue. I support nuclear power and always have. (although I used to own a copy of the No Nukes album, I bought it only for the Springsteen tracks).

My example of NBC and General Electric vis-à-vis nuclear power plants was to illustrate how news reports that the public needs to know about get skewed for the benefit of those who own the media organizations.

Quote:
None of Kuvasz' complaints about the allegedly conservative corporations that own the airwaves will ever convince me that The New York Times and the Washington Post( arguably the most imporatant and influential newspapers in the country) are conservative leaning instead of liberal leaning
Quote:
And, of course, everyone knows that Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw are conservatives.


So what? They cannot simply say whatever they want in their broadcasts. News directors and fact checkers clear all that they say on the air ahead of time before airing. This is the corporate filter that winnows out the personal bias of the reporter. What remains is information that does no harm to the corporate structure and its ability to make a profit.

And this is what Chomsky was saying. Nothing gets thru the filter that potentially harms the news organizations and their abilities to make profits, even the truth.

Quote:
Kuvasz' comment concerning journalists "miraculously forcing their opinions on their bosses and brainwashing multinational corporations" reveals that he does not believe that journalists make subjective decisions their entire working lives. They decide what to cover and what not to cover; what sources to use and which not to use; what quotes to use in a story and what quotes not to use in a story.


News reporters do not report anything they want, and they have editors who analyze and edit their work to satisfy the corporate needs of the media organization long before it is printed or aired. This discussion is not about how "journalists make subjective decisions their entire working lives." The discussion is about whether or not reporters personal liberal philosophies interfere with their ability to report objectively.

And still not one of you right wing yahoos can show evidence of it after 4 pages of this thread with your gee gaw posts.


Quote:
I had forgotten about the infamous vote in 1996 so I checked it out. I am sure that Kuvasz knows that Only 6 Democrats in the Senate voted against this bad bill. I am sure it could not have been so evil since the moral conscience of the Senate, Ted( Chappaquiddick) Kennedy and the plagiarist Joe Biden voted for it.

If Ted Kennedy voted for it, I am afraid that Kuvasz is mistaken. It could not have been a bill that was not helpful to the "downtrodden"..


I leave it to others like yourself to follow political leaders blindly and accept whatever they do. i think for myself. you should try it some time.
0 Replies
 
septembri
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 04:08 am
Oh, my, I must have gotten under Kuvasz's skin.

Well, I really must change myviews.

Write on the blackboard 100 times:

The NY Times is a conservative newspaper. It does not lean to the left.

Write on the blackboard 100 times:

The Washington Post is a conservative newspaper. It does not lean to the left.

Really,Kuvasz, not even the very liberal New York Times could defend Bill Clinton on the editorial page after his DNA was found on Monica's dress and you give that as proof that the New York Times is not liberal?

I wonder if Kuvasz( I know he is a good researcher,) can find any evidence for me that the New York Times and the Washington Post are not liberal leaning but rather conservative leaning.

I will accept quotes from respected journalists.

Do you have any Kuvasz or are you the only one who says that the New York Times and the Washington Post do not lean to the left?

Kuvasz says that President Bush lied.

I am very much afraid that Kuvasz does not know the meaning of the word.

In Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1990(CAPITALIZATION MINE) lie is defined as:

"A falsehood uttered for the purpose of deception; an INTENTIONAL statement of an untruth designed to mislead another; It means an untruth DELIBERATELY told>'

Kuvasz must prove that the alleged statement or statements were INTENTIONALLY designed to mislead another and that it was DELIBERATELY told.

This, of course, would require that Kuvasz knows or knew of President Bush's state of mind when he made those statements. Since Kuvasz does not, his statements about the President lying are simple hogwash.

I am sure that Kuvasz knows all of the details concerning the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

For a while, there was a move to consider the charge of perjury against Clinton.

Clinton's defenders pointed out that (correctly, for purposes of the law) that the crime of perjury is narrowly defined in the law. Jones's lawyers did not conduct a skillful examination of Clinton, in particular they did failed to ask him about specific sex acts. As a result, he could not be exposed to prosecution for perjury. The term Perjury, like the term Lie, has a legal meaning. I am very much afraid that Kuvasz does not understand this.

Kuvasz says that there is no evidence concerning WMD's.

The head of the Democratic Party, the most brilliant president of the twentieth century; the quintessential policy wonk, Bill Clinton told us that Saddam had WMD's.

On December 16th 1998, Clinton announced that he had ordered a substantial military strike against Iraq because of its continued failure to allow UN weapons inspections( This was without Congressional Approval and was certainly pre-emptive).

Clinton said:

quote:


"First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to RETAIN and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in months, not years"

I am sure that Kuvasz recognizes that you can't RETAIN something you do not have.

And Clinton NEVER made foreign policy mistakes--NEVER.

Kuvasz apparently does not know that many of the editors on the leading newspapers are just as liberal as the reporters.

The respected and well known author David Halberstam, in his book"The powers that be" wrote

quote

"What Ochs and Van Anda and their successors had done was to create a paper where the power was invested, not in the publisher, not in the editorial page, but finally in the reporter. The publisher deliberately diminished his own role. It was journalism which left it to the reader to make judgments. The Times' role was only in selecting where the reporters should go and what they should cover"

Apparently, Halberstam does not agree with Kuvasz as to the overriding power of the publisher, at least with regard to the UN Times, that is.

Furthermore, the famous James Reston, who set the tone for the paper in the seventies, became the Managing Editor in 1968 and the vice president of the paper in 1969. Halberstam tells us that:
"He was a man of the center, PROBABLY MORE LIBERAL than conservative"

Where are all of those conservative editors that Kuvasz was telling about?

What about the other important paper, The Washington Post?

Well, Halberstam says that: quote

"They( the reporters for the Washington Post) worked for what had traditionally been a LIBERAL INSTITUTION, an institution that regularly dictated the humane, honorable solution to the conflicts of other institutions."
end of quote
Say, where are all of Kuvasz'z conservatives?

Kuvasz says that in the real world, one has to prove what he says is true.

Kuvasz hasn't presented any proof.

I have.
0 Replies
 
septembri
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 04:30 am
And then Kuvasz talks about David Kay and his report that there were no WMD's in the country( Iraq) when he sought to find evidence.

I am very much afraid that Kuvasz did not read Kays' report.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report

I will quote some of Kay's findings. I invite anyone interested to read Kay's findings. His conclusions are far far different than Kuvasz's simple Kay found that there were not any WMD's in Iraq when the US invaded that country.

Let us see:

If Kay did not find WMD's he makes it very very clear that the WMD's were hard to find.

Kay found:

quote

l. Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation related to weapons programs. ( You can't find the records if someone burned them)

quote

2. As the report covers in detail, significant elements of the looting were carried out in a systematic and deliberate manner, with the CLEAR AIM OF CONCEALING PRE-CONFLICT ACTIVITIES OF SADDAM'S REGIME.

AND ( QUOTE)

3. Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre-conflict period and MAY have taken evidence and even weapons related materials with them.


and ( quote)

"Any actual WMD weapons or materials are likely to be small in relation to conventional armanment footprints and difficult or near impossible to identify with normal procdures"

and ( quote) ALL CAPS MINE

IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT EVEN THE BULKIEST MATERIALS WE ARE SEARCHING FOR, IN THE QUANTITIES WE WOULD EXPECT TO FIND CAN BE LOCATED IN SPACES NOT MUCH LARGER THAN A TWO CAR GARAGE



Kay ends his report:

quote

"It is far too early to REACH ANY DEFINITE CONCLUSIONS, and in some areas, we may NEVER reach that goal. We have not yet found stores of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say DEFINITIVELY, EITHER THAT SUCH WEAPONS STOCKS DO NOT EXIST OR THAT THEY EXISTED BEFORE THE WAR ANDOUR ONLY TASK IS TO FIND WHERE THEY HAVE GONE>"


END OF QUOTE


And those are quotes from a name(Kay) introduced by Kuvasz to try to prove that President Bush was lying about the existence of WMD's.


Again, I urge all interested to read Kay's report.

It shows that the left wing doesn't have a leg to stand on in this issue.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 06:03 am
During the U-N Security Council debate on the restoration of Iraq's sovereignty, Russia said the U.S.-British resolution on Iraq should specify who will be responsible for searching for alleged weapons stores.

So, certainly your and Her Majesty's government will answer the question about the search for the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in a similar way as you did.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 02:18 pm
Quote:
Oh, my, I must have gotten under Kuvasz's skin.

Well, I really must change my views.


Why change now? That view you see from your own rectum appears quite sufficient to please you.

Quote:
The NY Times is a conservative newspaper. It does not lean to the left.

Write on the blackboard 100 times:

The Washington Post is a conservative newspaper. It does not lean to the left.


What do right-wingers use as a measurement that the papers "lean left?"
Is it the way they report the news, or is it just facts they present to the public in their papers is what you do not like about them? It cannot be that the papers do not employ conservatives, since Bill Safire and David Brooks appear twice weekly on the editorial pages of the Times spouting their conservative nonsense.

The Post too employs regularly arch-conservatives editorial writers like Charles Krauthhammer and Mike Kelly and conservative commentators (one whose wife works as a GOP operative) like Howard Kurtz.

Again, what facts have you presented that show liberals are on the pages of these papers lying about events and facts to promote a liberal agenda?

You are back to opinion and not facts here. State hard evidence that "liberalism" is promoted by these newspapers.

Quote:
Really,Kuvasz, not even the very liberal New York Times could defend Bill Clinton on the editorial page after his DNA was found on Monica's dress and you give that as proof that the New York Times is not liberal?


No, as I wrote and you so willing distorted, I mentioned the aggressive nature of and the pernicious attacks on both Clinton and his wife in both papers vis-avis the Whitewater investigations. The Times and Post leaked grand jury testimony that was not balanced by other grand jury testimony they also held which contradicted the initial statements that both Clintons were engaged in criminal activities with Whitewater.

Quote:
I wonder if Kuvasz( I know he is a good researcher,) can find any evidence for me that the New York Times and the Washington Post are not liberal leaning but rather conservative leaning.


Did I call either of those papers "conservative?" No, I did not, and it reveals quite a bit of that bipolar world in which right-wingers reside that you believe that if something is not liberal it can only be conservative. Using such straightjacketed Aristotelian logic here is meaningless.

What I did say was that both papers look to their bottom line when deciding what to present on their pages, and that neither is willing to rock the boat with the facts if the facts presented hurt their bottom line. I mentioned this earlier when I pointed to the paucity of news reporting from them about the TCA of 1996 and subsequent legislation in which their parent companies made out like bandits.

Quote:
Do you have any {quotes} Kuvasz or are you the only one who says that the New York Times and the Washington Post do not lean to the left?


Just what is meant by the term "lean to the left?" Define it. You should be able to, since you claim it is so and since your analysis is simple analog logic, there must be evidence of that "left leaning" and it cannot simply be that they print stories you do not like.

There must be some evidence you can point to that there is an intentional presentation of the news that reflects a concerted effort to push public policy by lies and distortions towards the liberal philosophies you decry.

You typed a lot of words, but nothng that supports that rather bizarre viewpoint

Quote:
Kuvasz says that President Bush lied.

I am very much afraid that Kuvasz does not know the meaning of the word.


Thanks, I never was able to quite read a dictionary, not enough picture, don't you see; you cleared that up for me.

Quote:
In Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1990(CAPITALIZATION MINE) lie is defined as:

"A falsehood uttered for the purpose of deception; an INTENTIONAL statement of an untruth designed to mislead another; It means an untruth DELIBERATELY told>'


You think Bush did not knowingly present evidence that he knew to be false; that he simply "misspoke" himself when he said that the reason he invaded Iraq was because Saddam threw the UN inspectors out of Iraq?

Alternatively, that to the press and public Bush constantly associated Iraq with the 911 attacks and the war on terror in his speeches, knowing full well that there was no evidence of it. In 2003, 60% of the American public thought that Saddam was responsible for the 911 attack. That premise had to come from somewhere and it came from the Bush administration's attempt to tie them together in an effort to rally support of the invasion of Iraq.

Since Bush finally admitted that they have found absolutely no connection between the 911 attack and Iraq, your logic leads one to conclude that any American who still thinks Iraq was responsible for the 911 attack considers Bush a liar. So do I, but for far different reasons.

Quote:
Kuvasz must prove that the alleged statement or statements were INTENTIONALLY designed to mislead another and that it was DELIBERATELY told.


See above.

Additionally, in the case of his remarks that Saddam threw out the UN inspectors, the utter ignorance of, or lack of memory of George Bush is not an excuse for his statements that contradict objective reality.

Quote:
This, of course, would require that Kuvasz knows or knew of President Bush's state of mind when he made those statements. Since Kuvasz does not, his statements about the President lying are simple hogwash.


So, according to you a lie is only a lie if one knows the state of mind of the liar? Otherwise, it is merely a misstatement. How convenient for you (and Bush).

Quote:
Clinton's defenders pointed out that (correctly, for purposes of the law) that the crime of perjury is narrowly defined in the law. Jones's lawyers did not conduct a skillful examination of Clinton, in particular they did failed to ask him about specific sex acts. As a result, he could not be exposed to prosecution for perjury. The term Perjury, like the term Lie, has a legal meaning. I am very much afraid that Kuvasz does not understand this.


Sorry, my contact with right-wingers makes me quite experienced in discerning lies and the lying liars who say them.

Quote:
Kuvasz says that there is no evidence concerning WMD's.


Find any? Especially those nuclear tipped missiles that could reach the US in 45 minutes as Cheney stated, and produce a mushroom cloud over US cities? After all, it was this more than any reason that Bush gave as to why he initiated the attacks on Iraq.

It was called premptive self-defense, remember?

Quote:
The head of the Democratic Party, the most brilliant president of the twentieth century; the quintessential policy wonk, Bill Clinton told us that Saddam had WMD's.


Yes, Clinton did, in the 1990's, but he was not referring to Iraq having them in 2003 when the US attacked Iraq.

Quote:
On December 16th 1998, Clinton announced that he had ordered a substantial military strike against Iraq because of its continued failure to allow UN weapons inspections( This was without Congressional Approval and was certainly pre-emptive).


And the right-wing screamed "wag the dog" when Clinton had Iraq bombed. You cannot have it both ways; you cannot condemn Clinton for attacking Iraq as merely an attempt to refocus attention away from his oval office escapades and later use his actions as prima fascia evidence to support your position. Either he was wagging the dog and did not really have to attack Iraq, or he did? This is what is so distasteful about dealing with right-wing yahoos; they constantly apply broad sophist arguments that show no effort at internal intellectual consistency.

It should be noted that many of the Americans who were UN inspectors actually were undercover CIA agents collecting data other than that which the UN resolutions called for and that is why the Iraqis were generally uncooperative.

Nevertheless, one did not see that information printed either in the New York Times or in Washington Post until several years later. So much for that liberal press and their push for a liberal America.

BTW: It was not the Iraqis who threw out the UN inspectors from their country in 1998. They were told to get out by the American government, and once they were gone Clinton bombed Iraqi military installations.

Quote:
Clinton said:

quote: "First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to RETAIN and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in months, not years"


If this is so true, why did Clinton demand that the UN inspectors leave Iraq in 1998? It does not make any sense to say that only an inspection of the country will certify that the Iraqis did not have WMD and in the same breath order them out of the country so you can bomb them into stopping such efforts.

Quote:
]I am sure that Kuvasz recognizes that you can't RETAIN something you do not have.

And they did not have WMD, or even programs did they?

And Clinton NEVER made foreign policy mistakes--NEVER.


So, define WMD for us. In addition to nuclear weapons, are you including tactical battlefield mustard and nerve gas weapons such as Iraq's army used on the Iranians and the Kurds? Those the Iraqis had, most certainly prior to the first Gulf War, but not when the US went into Iraq last year. But even if they did, such weapons could not be used against the US as described by the hysterical mouthings of Bush/Cheney that we could be bombed by Iraq within 45 minutes.

But, there is no evidence that Iraq had WMD anyway. The mustard and nerve gas canisters they were purported to hold were tactical battlefield weapons from the late 1980's with increasingly inert chemicals generated over time from the active components and by realistic definition are incapable of "mass" destruction at all. Hell, if you want to be so elastic as to such a definition of WMD one can call gallon jugs of chlorox and ammonia binary weapons of mass destruction because when mixed the components create chlorine gas that can drift over an acre.

Quote:
Kuvasz apparently does not know that many of the editors on the leading newspapers are just as liberal as the reporters.

There you go again. You have yet to show that reporters who profess liberal views lie and distort the news to promote a liberal agenda, and now indicate that editors who also profess liberal views slant the news to lead to the triumph of liberalism.

Quote:
"What Ochs and Van Anda and their successors had done was to create a paper where the power was invested, not in the publisher, not in the editorial page, but finally in the reporter. The publisher deliberately diminished his own role. It was journalism which left it to the reader to make judgments. The Times' role was only in selecting where the reporters should go and what they should cover"


You seem to have a problem with a form of journalism that describes the facts and allows the reader to draw his/her own conclusions. According to your attacks on the Times, you do not like the way they do the "news." Apparently you want the opposite from them; a slanted viewpoint instead of news reported objectively so that the viewer can decide for himself.

But wait, you already call them slanted, so which is it now?

No wonder you don't like the Times, they present facts and let you decide… "they report, you decide, " seems I have heard that line before, but used by a less objective news source. And there you have it. The reporters do not work on whatever they want to. They are directed to report on certain stories and have to satisfy corporate mangers who themselves represent the interests of the corporation they work for and defend the status quo of corporatism.

Quote:
Apparently, Halberstam does not agree with Kuvasz as to the overriding power of the publisher, at least with regard to the UN Times, that is.


You forgot or knowingly dismiss the fact that they are still news editors who oversee what is published in the paper and work in a corporatist environment where profits, not ideologies drive policy. These people are not there to slant the news to a liberal bent, their mission is to make sure that the paper functions properly, i.e., set public opinion to support a corporatist view shared by the owners of the companies.

Quote:
Furthermore, the famous James Reston, who set the tone for the paper in the seventies, became the Managing Editor in 1968 and the vice president of the paper in 1969. Halberstam tells us that:
"He was a man of the center, PROBABLY MORE LIBERAL than conservative"


Are you old enough to have actually read Jimmy Reston's work when he was a reporter for the New York Times? I am. He was a vociferous supporter of the war in Viet Nam, and he did not write from a liberal perspective while at the Times. He was objective, and a corporatist, and tore into liberals as well as conservatives when he thought them wrong. So try another smear tactic. This one is DOA.

Unless you concede that being a liberal like reston means that a liberal is objective.

Quote:
Where are all of those conservative editors that Kuvasz was telling about?


And yet you go again with the lies and distortions of what I actually wrote.

I did not state that the editors of the news are essentially conservative, but that their agenda is to support their company's status quo and not make problems for their company's bottom line when presenting the news. What does that have to do with calling them conservative other than conservatives support corporatist ideologies?

Quote:
What about the other important paper, The Washington Post?


What about the Washington Times? It is a pure propaganda rag owned by the MOONIES, or the Pittsburgh paper chain owned by Richard Sciafe? They are blatantly conservative and print anti-liberal screeds regularly.

Quote:
Well, Halberstam says that: quote

"They( the reporters for the Washington Post) worked for what had traditionally been a LIBERAL INSTITUTION, an institution that regularly dictated the humane, honorable solution to the conflicts of other institutions."
end of quote
Say, where are all of Kuvasz'z conservatives?


See above.

And it appears that you have a real problem with anything or person who seeks the "humane, honorable solutions to the conflicts of other insitituions," because, by definition that is what was used to define the liberalism od the Post

Quote:
Kuvasz says that in the real world, one has to prove what he says is true.

Kuvasz hasn't presented any proof.

I have.


LOL All you have presented is a sow's ear and called it silk.

But, let's wade through further your awful offal.

Quote:
Kay found: quote

l. Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation related to weapons programs. ( You can't find the records if someone burned them)


Are those things paper documents or actual weapons that were dispersed or destroyed? You are now claiming that we went to war over paper and not actual weapons? Now you are at odds with your own Fuhrer's words.

Quote:
2. As the report covers in detail, significant elements of the looting were carried out in a systematic and deliberate manner, with the CLEAR AIM OF CONCEALING PRE-CONFLICT ACTIVITIES OF SADDAM'S REGIME.


Looting was carried out by Saddam's forces, to hide WMDs? All we saw was that the Iraqis ripped out of buildings anything at all they could use or sell. But according to your interpretation of Kay's remarks such whole scale looting was really a secret operation carried out by undercover Republican Guard loyalists of Saddam to hide evidence from the Americans? Were there weaponry looted or again just paperwork, which since Kay did not find cannot actually confirm were of importance.

Yes, that ugly meme of "could have," "might have," " possibly" rears its ugly head once more in your proposition.

As to this remark by Kay's of secret operations of Saddam loyalists looting sites, why did the US armed forces not secure for months Iraqi army facilities known to contain munitions dumps full of rifles, mortars, RPGs and artillery?

Quote:
3. Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre-conflict period and MAY have taken evidence and even weapons related materials with them.


Ah, the "MIGHT, COULD, POSSIBLY" weasel words used in advertising for fudging facts to get a reader to associate disparate things. It's old hat and has been used to draw conclusions that are not supported by facts.

Those men could have, might have, and possibly carried with them vanilla ice cream across the borders too. But, to associate their travels with prima fascia evidence that they carried with them WMD, viz., nuclear weapons is absurd.

Quote:
"Any actual WMD weapons or materials are likely to be small in relation to conventional armanment footprints and difficult or near impossible to identify with normal procdures"


So, Kay, along with the recent UN inspectors earlier produced absolutely no evidence that Iraq was actively working on building a nuclear weapon or had in its possession materials capable of constructing one, but since they would be small anyway, we are not sure of it?

We also have no evidence that Saddam was in communications with Martians either, but we are also unsure of it because of the difficulties or near impossibility to identify his communication devices with normal procedures.

Quote:
IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT EVEN THE BULKIEST MATERIALS WE ARE SEARCHING FOR, IN THE QUANTITIES WE WOULD EXPECT TO FIND CAN BE LOCATED IN SPACES NOT MUCH LARGER THAN A TWO CAR GARAGE


No, that is not entirely true. If there was an active nuclear weapons program there would have to be both impure uranium and the means to purify it. Neither was found and it takes a ton of raw yellow cake to make a even a few pounds of enriched uranium necessary to make a nuclear bomb.

All the people supposedly engaged in such programs from Iraq have said it wasn't so. In fact, most of such men are still imprisoned and would likely be willing tell the Americans anything they want simply to get out of jail.

Quote:
Kay ends his report:

"It is far too early to REACH ANY DEFINITE CONCLUSIONS, and in some areas, we may NEVER reach that goal. We have not yet found stores of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say DEFINITIVELY, EITHER THAT SUCH WEAPONS STOCKS DO NOT EXIST OR THAT THEY EXISTED BEFORE THE WAR ANDOUR ONLY TASK IS TO FIND WHERE THEY HAVE GONE>"


So if they spend 100 years searching for weapons or evidence of active programs, that is still not enough time to prove that the Iraqis did not have nuclear weapons capable of creating a mushroom cloud over US cities within 45 minute of launching them? Is that what you are getting at with Kay's remarks?

And it is this "shadow of a doubt" Kay bespeaks of that exonerates Bush's LIES about Iraq Nukes?

What will it take for you right-wingers to let it go that Bush was telling the truth about the imminent capabilities of Iraq to torch American cities?

One cannot prove, as you so easily mentioned "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that something does not exist, only that something exists. But, there is no evidence that WMD existed in Iraq immediately prior to the American invasion of 2003, let alone now.

Quote:
And those are quotes from a name(Kay) introduced by Kuvasz to try to prove that President Bush was lying about the existence of WMD's.


If not, why did Bush pull out all the WMD inspectors months ago?

They ain't there, and they never were. That's why the President of the United States has removed all those hundreds of WMD inspectors who were searching for them in Iraq.

Bush did lie, no weapons were found after exhaustive searches throughout the country and he is not even worried about looking for them anymore.

But one more thing.

If you yahoos on the far right are all so cock-sure that nuclear weapons are still hidden somewhere in Iraq, what in the hell is George Bush doing handing over the God damned country to Iraqi civilians before we find them?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 10:25 pm
kuvasz wrote:
Finn, to play your in little sandbox, one must certainly define "liberal" in the context of what the media presents. But you didn't, which allows you to worm around the issue like a maggot around meat.


At the risk of being accused of an ad hominem attack in response to a series of ad hominem attacks: You certainly are a surly SOB aren't you kuvo?

And yet your avatar seems so friendly. What happened? A lowdown right wing yahoo lay you off?

Responding in detail will take more time than I can devote now, but I wanted to make sure I got in that ad hominem attack before the thread moved too far along.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Jun, 2004 10:53 pm
dropping this off here for later pick-up
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 01:57 am
beth

Thank you. That's not a site I visit, so wouldn't have seen it if not for your link. How is it possible that the GOP has gotten so nuts it would actually print that on their site?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 07:00 am
blatham, i've been dropping into gopusa regularly for some time. their forums are particularly fascinating reading. and of course, any conservative media-head book i could want is available for $1 Confused
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 07:07 am
Wow. Such a deal. And every Coulter book sold for $1 (the remainder subsidized by the GOP) counts towards those 'best seller' tallies.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 07:30 am
Knowing that has been one of my little secret smiles for some time Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2004 10:06 pm
ehBeth wrote:


I have to say that as certain I am that there is a liberal bias in the American media, it is well over the top to suggest that they are guilty of treason.

I do agree, however, that there is something very disturbing about all of these articles that highlight our vulnerabilities. I recall reading that documents were found in Afghanistan that indicated that al qaida renewed its interest in biological weapons after reading accounts, in the US media, of how possible their use might be.

I know the argument is that by highlighting the vulnerabilities, the powers that be will be forced to address them, but the validity of such an argument depends upon the ability of terrorists to discern these vulnerabilities without help from the American media. There really is no reason to believe they have this ability.

In any case, I'm afraid I'm too cynical to believe that the majority of reporters who reveal these vulnerabilities have anything on their mind other than a "scoop." Of course their motivation is, essentially immaterial, if they still serve the public good, but it remains highly questionable that they are.

I do think that the media is overly focused on the negatives of the current state of Iraq. For the most part, this is probably due to that same desire for the "scoop," however I'm convinced that many of the press are only too happy to also be part of the effort to defeat GW Bush.

Nevertheless, this isn't treason, just unbalanced reportage with the possibility of political malignancy, and with an irresponsible and reprehensible disregard for the effect of their actions.

I think that treason is a crime that requires intent. One can hurt one's country through irresponsibility, stupidity, or simple mistake, but is that treason? I don't think so.

As for Teddy Kennedy, I'm afraid Salvato give far too much credit to the power of this bloated toad's rhetoric. Soldiers in Iraq are perfectly capable of shrugging of the histrionics of the uber partisan sot, and not letting it affect their morale. Similarly, his rants would only undermine Bush's ability to lead if our enemies believed that Bush served at Teddy's pleasure.

Extremism in the service of (the) right is no better that extremism in opposition to (the) right.
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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 01/27/2022 at 04:43:05