monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@blatham,

Your's and Taibbi's words and sentiments are reprehensible and demonstrative of an ideological zealotry that is at once cynical and infantile.

With so many evil and truly vile individuals walking the planet and corrupting, oppressing and destroying millions of lives, to save one's utter contempt and absolute condemnation for Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh and Rupert Murdoch should be unbelievable, but it's not.

There's absolutely no point in reminding you or Tabbi of those on the Left who are just as responsible, by your equation of accountability, for the coarsening of our civil discourse, and it would be equally fruitless to point out the irony and hypocrisy of the seeping hatred in your castigation of these men for spreading the very same animus you bemoan.

Clearly, you have both fully embraced the message you believe has been driven by these three and which you consider to be so toxic, and so who is really the most deserving of our scorn?

3 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote Finn:

Quote:

With so many evil and truly vile individuals walking the planet and corrupting, oppressing and destroying millions of lives, to save one's utter contempt and absolute condemnation for Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh and Rupert Murdoch should be unbelievable, but it's not.

Ailes and Murdoch are responsible for the lying Jeanine Pirro and her hate pieces:

Fox News 'terror expert' says everyone in Birmingham is a Muslim
Pundit on right-wing channel says non-Muslims "simply don't go" into Britain's second largest city, prompting immediate Twitter backlash
By Raf Sanchez, Washington, video source Fox News
10:17AM GMT 12 Jan 2015

This story has been updated to include Mr Emerson's apology.

An American "terrorism expert" on the right-wing Fox News channel has declared that Birmingham is "a totally Muslim" city "where non-Muslims just simply don't go".

Steve Emerson made the claim, which may come as a surprise to the hundreds of thousands of non-Muslim residents of Britain's second-largest city, during a television discussion about no-go zones in Europe where Muslims are apparently in complete control.

"In Britain, it's not just no-go zones, there are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim where non-Muslims just simply don't go in," he said.

Mr Emerson, who describes himself as "an internationally recognised expert on terrorism", did not stop there.

Related Content
The truth about Birmingham - #foxnewsfacts
Paris mayor: 'We'll sue Fox News over Muslim no-go zone claims'
David Cameron: US terror 'expert' Steve Emerson is a 'complete idiot'
Sarah Palin launches online television channel

"Parts of London, there are actually Muslim religious police that actually beat and actually wound seriously anyone who doesn't dress according to Muslim, religious Muslim attire," he proclaimed, without giving examples.

He described Birmingham as one of a number of European cities "where sharia courts were set up, where Muslim density is very intense, where the police don't go in, and where it's basically a separate country almost, a country within a country."

Mr Emerson is a regular contributor to Fox News and was appearing on Judge Pirro, a show hosted by the failed Republican politician Jeanine Pirro.

Ms Pirro responded to her guest's claim that the British government doesn't "exercise any sovereignty" in Birmingham by saying: "You know what it sounds like to me, Steve? It sounds like a caliphate within a particular country."

Steve Emerson tells the Fox news anchor that Birmingham is a no-go area for non-Muslims

Disgruntled Brummies took to Twitter to express their disdain for Mr Emerson's characterisation of their home city.

And others quickly joined in, posting sarcastic retorts under the hashtag #foxnewsfacts.

After being contacted by The Telegraph, Mr Emerson released a fulsome apology, saying he "clearly made a terrible error for which I am deeply sorry".

He added he was going to make a donation to a Birmingham charity and take out an ad in a Birmingham newspaper.

Here's the apology in full:
You may quote me on this as I will be posting this and taking out an ad in a Birmingham paper. I have clearly made a terrible error for which I am deeply sorry. My comments about Birmingham were totally in error. And I am issuing an apology and correction on my website immediately for having made this comment about the beautiful city of Birmingham. I do not intend to justify or mitigate my mistake by stating that I had relied on other sources because I should have been much more careful. There was no excuse for making this mistake and I owe an apology to every resident of Birmingham. I am not going to make any excuses. I made an inexcusable error. And I am obligated to openly acknowledge that mistake.
Steve

PS. I intend to make a donation to a Birmingham charity.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11338985/Fox-News-terror-expert-says-everyone-in-Birmingham-is-a-Muslim.html

Anything to promote hate and fear is what Fox leads with. And this disgusting "news talk host" is on Fox every weekday.

1 Reply

@revelette1,

It never fails but that people vehemently arguing one position will turn on a dime and embraces it's polar opposite if it helps them in their criticism of the other tribe's chief or elders.

Was Senator Murphy, and similarly positioned individuals, slamming the assessment and tacit support of Assad when Nancy Pelosi was chumming it up with the Syrian dictator in Damascus or then Secretary of State Clinton pronounced he was some we could work with?

Partisan critics will reliably mock idealism as naivety when it suits them and in the next breath condemn cynical real politik for leading to dancing with the devil.

The low status of the human rights record of Saudi Arabia is not a predictor of it's inability to to bring stability (and the certain sort of "peace" that attends it) and security to the region. If anything, it is in the short term a good indicator that they can be successful.

Human rights are, on a daily basis, abused by the regime in Saudi Arabia, but the Kingdom is quite peaceful and secure and particularly in comparison to other nations in the region. The two are directly linked.

This is not to justify the abusive methods the regime employs to maintain stability and it could be easily argued that those methods have created a stability that is always on the edge of chaos and not a model for the successful maintenance of long term peace and security.

However, it could also be easily argued that what the US and the rest of the West needs in the region is stability and security right now, and that we can't afford to pursue the long, arduous process of achieving these goals a decade or more from now even though doing so may lead to a lasting favorable situation. In addition, not only can we not be assured that the farsighted and aspirational process will be successful, we have the repeat failures of our recent, lofty nation building projects to suggest they likely will not be.

My point is not that one approach is clearly better than the other. Both have their virtues and their dangers. What I am arguing though is that we are almost certain to have no success if we keep shifting our foreign policy either because we demand immediate and total success or to suit our partisan political battles in which we are constantly engaged.

Neocons pressed for a foreign policy predicated on idealism with it's core element being the active spreading of democracy around the world. One can argue whether the motivations of all neocons were pure and there is no arguing that during the period when they were in ascendancy on foreign policy, their lofty design was frequently undercut by incompetent execution, but it is an approach based on gaining long term benefit from promoting human freedom. Again, one can reasonably argue against the efficacy of the neocon philosophy, but if you come down on the side of heavily weighing a potential strategic partner's human rights record, then you are aligned more closely with neocons than those promoting real politik.

2 Replies

@giujohn,

Anecdotal evidence is really not worth much, no offense.

The following is full of information of before and after ACA which not biased towards ACA, also talks about the republicans plans.

Where Both the ACA and AHCA Fall Short, and What the Health Insurance Market Really Needs

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

What I am arguing though is that we are almost certain to have no success if we keep shifting our foreign policy either because we demand immediate and total success or to suit our partisan political battles in which we are constantly engaged.

As one of those who often derides the whole notion of "universal human rights" I was critical of much of the neo-con ideology (including some of Obama's lofty rhetoric). I have such fond memories of the "Arab Spring". But I'm not sure Trump's version of realpolitik is any better. Making our economy hum by selling advanced weaponry around the world and cozying up to autocrats seems a recipe for disaster on someone else's watch. And the awkward lurching from one to the other seems really destructive to the whole concept of "statecraft" which emerged after WWII. I think a more adept person — maybe an actual experienced politician? — might have been able to shift our policy in a more subtle, more incremental manner. We'll know more in a few years but as for now I really don't think that economic nationalism is what the world really needs.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Your's and Taibbi's words and sentiments are reprehensible and demonstrative of an ideological zealotry that is at once cynical and infantile.

With so many evil and truly vile individuals walking the planet and corrupting, oppressing and destroying millions of lives, to save one's utter contempt and absolute condemnation for Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh and Rupert Murdoch should be unbelievable, but it's not.

There's absolutely no point in reminding you or Tabbi of those on the Left who are just as responsible, by your equation of accountability, for the coarsening of our civil discourse, and it would be equally fruitless to point out the irony and hypocrisy of the seeping hatred in your castigation of these men for spreading the very same animus you bemoan.

Clearly, you have both fully embraced the message you believe has been driven by these three and which you consider to be so toxic, and so who is really the most deserving of our scorn?

Who is most deserving of our scorn? That is the question.

Here's a headline that should bring perspective:

Anderson Cooper: If Trump ‘Took A Dump On His Desk,’ Jeffrey Lord Would Defend It

Anderson Cooper is probably correct. In this fictional world where Trump takes a dump on his desk, we know the rule: The best defense is a good offense.

So what if Trump took a dump on his desk in the Oval Office? He's the president and he can take a dump wherever he wants. And why weren't you offended when your guy picked his nose in public? After all, taking a dump in the privacy of one's office isn't nearly as scornful as picking one's nose in public.

And then the people on the opposite sides of the controversy are at each other's throats--attack, attack, attack--and the divisions among us grow.

Who benefits from this toxic and divisive environment? Not the 99 percent of us who truly need a functioning government and uncorrupted representatives.

The Democratic and Republican parties are equally bad to the detriment of all Americans and most likely, to the detriment of all the world's inhabitants.

Both parties produce very unacceptable candidates, and who are financing those candidates?

I didn't vote for Hillary. I didn't vote for Trump. No matter which one was elected, the American people were screwed. What do we do about that?

We are the ones who are most deserving of scorn because we allow ourselves to be divided and conquered to our own detriment.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Your's and Taibbi's words and sentiments are reprehensible and demonstrative of an ideological zealotry that is at once cynical and infantile.

With so many evil and truly vile individuals walking the planet and corrupting, oppressing and destroying millions of lives, to save one's utter contempt and absolute condemnation for Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh and Rupert Murdoch should be unbelievable, but it's not.

Paragraph two is fallacious as neither Taibbi nor I made such a comparison/argument. The point is the modern coarsening and degradation of civic political discourse.

Nor is this necessarily a matter of ideology. First of all, Murdoch is not an ideologue in the manner of the other two. His interest is power and money. If a certain sort of ideology facilitates his goals, he'll move in that direction.

Quote:

Privately, Murdoch is as impressed by Ailes’ business savvy as he is dismissive of his extremist politics. "You know Roger is crazy," Murdoch recently told a colleague, shaking his head in disbelief. "He really believes that stuff."

RS And Murdoch has corrupted media (and government and even police entities) wherever he gains a foothold as we saw revealed in Britain most obviously.

Secondly, both Fox and Limbaugh are despised by many working in more traditional right wing media. I quote a lot of these entities and individuals here regularly. The National Review, for example, whatever one might think of their ideological stance on issues, normally sets intellectual and truth standards that neither Ailes nor Limbaugh have any interest in trying to meet.

And all three of these individuals have made hundreds of millions (or more) from playing this lowest common denominator game that appeals to the worst sort of tendencies in the American psyche.

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
"Passed falsehoods" is not the definition of the word "leak."

Blue, the walking dictionary and absolute king of linguistic casuistry, is back, eh?

I've never left, fool, and you left my questions to your sophistic rationalizations answered.

layman wrote:

You're right, that not the definition. Then again, nobody ever claimed it was.

That's the gist of oralloy's explanation. Take it up with him, trumpee.

layman wrote:

On the other hand, only a fool would think that all "classified information" compiled by the government is absolutely true.

Keep flaining at your own strawmen, trumpee. That's all you fools have, after all.

So now, your explanation of your and your fellow trumpees' use of the words "leak" and "fake news" is about "classified information," and not about confidential information, which dosen't involve "classification," necessarily. M'kay.

layman wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
A falsehood, being untrue, cannot be a leak because a falsehood is not information. You're merely speaking in circles.

You say something like that and then wanna talk about someone ELSE "speaking in circles?"

Go figure, eh?

I was reiterating oralloy's explanation of his use of the word "leak."

You've only added your own sophistic rationalizations for your hero, trumpee.

That's all that you people have.

0 Replies

@hightor,

When policy divisions can divide so cleanly between approaches like real politik and neocon idealism it's time to declare for one or the other and move away from the safe but banal position of " I didn't like this approach but I don't much like the other one either."

It is crucial that our government pursue one or the other to preserve predictability and confidence for the nations of the world who look to us for either leadership or their cues for action.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Quote:

We are the ones who are most deserving of scorn because we allow ourselves to be divided and conquered to our own detriment.

Fair enough, but blatham, despite his conceit, is one of "us" and Taibbi is far, far less removed from "us" than he would like to admit.

We, who allow ourselves to be divided deserve scorn, but they who divide us surely do as well.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

I disagree. I think the time for reasoned personalized consideration is now, in the US or the rest of the world......... whichever of the many possible sides people are taking now. What we do affects the world, and discussion and world voices are owed listening to. Not just the loud politicians either - there are wise people in canada and central and south america and asia, africa and europe.

A man I don't like now apparently appallingly springs forth, fast.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Murdoch may or may not be an ideologue, but you and Taibbi certainly are.

You would not describe your view and Taibbi's of Roger Ailes as one of utter contempt? When have either of you offered a view of him that didn't consist entirely of condemnation? Taibbi didn't feel the need to extend his utter contempt and condemnation to Limbaugh and Murdoch...but you did.

It matters little whether or not there are people on either side of the aisle who share your utter contempt for Ailes, Murdoch and Limbaugh. The fact that a great many people embrace an idiotic notion doesn't make it any less idiotic, and your cherry picking comments made by conservatives that seem to concur with your views is growing tiresome. If these individuals are as noxious as you constantly claim (and particularly when they disagree with you - which as you are well aware is more frequent that the rare alignment of opinions) it's disingenuous, at best, to use their comments as special confirmation of your rightness.

Whether or not these three individuals are deserving of some level of scorn is a subject for reasonable debate, however there is no room for debate when someone insists they are as close to the anti-Christ as we are likely to find (as you do). Obviously there is a bit of exaggeration for style's sake in this assertion, but I would be interested if you could locate one or two comments you've made in this forum that suggest that you believe anyone (other than similar ideological targets like Trump, Ann Coulter, Grover Norquist, Dick Cheney or the Koch Bros...to name but a few ) are more vile or venal than Ailes, Limbaugh or Trump.

2 Replies

@ossobucotemp,

I'm afraid I don't understand the point you are making.

What do you disagree with? (As usual) I've stated quite a few opinions and positions.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Scientists considering the question of whether or not anything can exceed the speed of light should study the down voting on A2K.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

The point is the modern coarsening and degradation of civic political discourse.
Nor is this necessarily a matter of ideology. First of all, Murdoch is not an ideologue in the manner of the other two. His interest is power and money. If a certain sort of ideology facilitates his goals, he'll move in that direction. And Murdoch has corrupted media (and government and even police entities) wherever he gains a foothold as we saw revealed in Britain most obviously.
Secondly, both Fox and Limbaugh are despised by many working in more traditional right wing media. I quote a lot of these entities and individuals here regularly. The National Review, for example, whatever one might think of their ideological stance on issues, normally sets intellectual and truth standards that neither Ailes nor Limbaugh have any interest in trying to meet.
And all three of these individuals have made hundreds of millions (or more) from playing this lowest common denominator game that appeals to the worst sort of tendencies in the American psyche.

I agree with Balham's expressed concerns about the regrettable coarsening of American political discourse, but reject utterly his implicatrion that this is in any way a uniquely Right Wing political phenomenon, or even one confined to the likes of Murdoch, Limbach, and Fox, One could, with equal or greater accuracy, assert the same things about the largely Left Wing Mainstream media including news outlets like MSNBC, CNN; various Left Wing commentators; and , papers like the NYT and Washington Post and all their owners and financial backers.

I am also bemused by Blatham's evident willingness to ignore his own, often coarse, exaggerated contributions here to the personalization and coarsening of our political discourse on this thread. The odd concentration on the personalities and psyches of those whose policies he opposes, whether Trump or other prominent Republican leaders, so evident in most of his posts here exemplify the very things he claims above to oppose.

Sadly all of this has become increasingly common in the country even among the political leaders and office holders on both sides of the political divide, and, to some degree, it affects us all. In addition I believe our political dialogue has become a bit too abstract and theoretical, lacking the pragmatism and compromise necessary to achieve effective governance. In the poet W.B. Yeat's words " The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

1 Reply

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

Anecdotal evidence is really not worth much, no offense.

The following is full of information of before and after ACA which not biased towards ACA, also talks about the republicans plans.

Where Both the ACA and AHCA Fall Short, and What the Health Insurance Market Really Needs

The national average deductable is like $7400 and average premium is like $385...that ain't no anecdote.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

silly, just look at the little green thing at the top of my post - that gives a clue re conversation

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
We are the ones who are most deserving of scorn because we allow ourselves to be divided and conquered to our own detriment.

Fair enough, but blatham, despite his conceit, is one of "us" and Taibbi is far, far less removed from "us" than he would like to admit.

We, who allow ourselves to be divided deserve scorn, but they who divide us surely do as well.

"They" will always exist.

What can "we" do about it?

Are "we" doomed to live our lives as useful idiots?

1 Reply

I just finished watching Trump's fairly long speech at the Arab American Summit in Ridhya Saudi Arabia. It involves some typical Trump elements of prose .. repetition of basic points and some rather direct statements on matters usually left a bit more vague and ambiguous by others. However, I found it to be very much on point with respect to the issues that brought the various countries together for this meeting. He made very specific comments on our collective interests in combating extremism, religious and cultural intolerance and terrorist violence; to the need for tolerance among Shia & Sunni Muslims, Christians and Jews; and direct references to how the lack of these things in the Middle East are the key inhibitors to its development for the good of all present. He also appealed to Saudi interests (if not all other participants) in noting the opposition of the Iranian regime (as opposed to its people) to these values and harmony in the region.

The rather elaborate welcoming ceremony offered by the Saudis, together with the awards the kingdom offered Trump offered a contrast to prior receptions of US Presidents, notably that for President Obama, following his first term "apology tour": of the Middle East, in which he presumed to apologize for the whole history of conflict between the Islamic world and the West. It may be that the Saudis are more impressed with practical policy and the promise of real leadership than vapid PC rhetoric.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

You would not describe your view and Taibbi's of Roger Ailes as one of utter contempt? When have either of you offered a view of him that didn't consist entirely of condemnation? Taibbi didn't feel the need to extend his utter contempt and condemnation to Limbaugh and Murdoch...but you did.

Utter contempt for all three? Yes. And extending from Ailes to Murdoch is no leap. Murdoch is more contemptible because the range of the damage he has caused is far greater and because Ailes would never have gained such power and influence if Murdoch had not hired him. Extending to Limbaugh is no leap either because he plays the same game as Ailes.

Quote:

I would be interested if you could locate one or two comments you've made in this forum that suggest that you believe anyone (other than similar ideological targets like Trump, Ann Coulter, Grover Norquist, Dick Cheney or the Koch Bros...to name but a few ) are more vile or venal than Ailes, Limbaugh or Trump.

It's a rather silly question or it is asked in a unprofitable way. We are discussing US politics thus those are the characters who are the subject (as opposed to Hell's Angels, mass murders, men who beat up women, etc). My measure of how contemptible such characters are depends up, more than anything, the consequences of their position and behavior and what, if anything, might redeem them. I see nothing at all that redeems either man. I also hold Coulter in utter contempt but her influence is less than these three. I hold Burlusconi in contempt, and Putin, and Erdogan, and NK's great leader and many others but they aren't much relevant to our subject. Are the Koch brothers more guilty of degrading civic discourse than Ailes? Probably not but their influence moves in other directions. Is the House Majority Leader contemptible? You bet, but his personal influence is much less than Ailes or the Koch brothers in either the degradation of discourse or in influencing US politics. Trump is a something of a unique case - an incompetent, self-indulgent clown with nothing to redeem him but who holds power because of Ailes, Limbaugh, Murdoch and the Koch brothers.

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know