2
   

Liberals - Practice Conservative Argument Techniques

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 10:07 am
Foxy:-

I'm sorry to say but you have missed the point.The monarchies and states that grew up around that time did so IN SPITE of the Renaissance.The Renaissance was putting the clock back.

The Dionysius cult is entirely appropriate to a thread about conservative values as are the Eleusinian mysteries.The conservatism you seem to be talking about is simply the slow wing of the socialist party.

There is a very large difference between something happening at the same time as something else and it being caused by that something else.You might get past some people with that type of thing but you won't get past me.
A modern love of Renaissance art is a psychological phenomena usually found in ladies of the lower middle class who are both shocked and excited by the images displayed.But that has nothing to do with art.It has to do with things that Lola might find a discreet way of explaining.I avert my gaze.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 11:47 am
Here's an interesting turn from the National Review.

Apparently, someone else has been thinking about the difference between words and action and meaning.

Quote:


What Hillary could do - National Review link
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 12:00 pm
Foxfire,

A+ for this one:

Quote:
I do think the neo-libs would benefit from a thorough review of classical liberalism.


You see how the Rovians argue. Good demonstration of Rovian technique.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 12:03 pm
Quote:
I avert my gaze.


Spendius,

I suspect you don't disagree with me when I say that you are as hung up as the rest of us. That's funny.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 12:12 pm
ehBeth wrote:
Here's an interesting turn from the National Review.

Apparently, someone else has been thinking about the difference between words and action and meaning.

Quote:


What Hillary could do - National Review link


Beth,

Interesting quote. I think it's a good example of how the conservatives, and I mean the real live radical conservatives are trying to control everyone, including the liberals. They want to convince us to play their game. Play defense, as if that's the only way to win.

But I think it's a losing proposition. We should use their techniques to support our values. It's the only way. Otherwise, we might as well all become fundamentalist Christian Republicans. And if that happens, we'll have 1984.

Let them eat our serve for a change. Then we'll have a game of serving as well as getting. On a fair playing field like that, I think the liberals have the true upper hand.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 12:22 pm
Teacher, Teacher, Not to be a tattletale....
Shouldn't Spendius get a big fat ....

F-

for not keeping his arguments simple and simplistic? And then he has the audicity to suggest that we should go to a library and look something up.

wheew... I feel so much better now. I'll just keep repeating "liberals are bad" for the rest of the afternoon until I realize it is truth.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 12:48 pm
LOL parados, very funny.

For this, parados:

Quote:
I'll just keep repeating "liberals are bad" for the rest of the afternoon until I realize it is truth.


You get a big fat A+ for process. However, on a content level, I thought you were arguing for the liberals. About this I may be wrong. And if so, that's fine. But you're quite right, I think, that the technique is the same no matter which labels are inserted. And if, by your choice of labels, you were trying to demonstrate this, I appoint you as co-teacher.

But Spendius isn't here to practice......he's a British intellectual with an artistic style. He's not for everybody, but if you notice that Spendius is actually doing something that is much more important than what he is saying, I think you'll have an easier time appreciating his humor.

His technique is not the one I'm recommending we use. And it would not ever win an election. But still, he's fun. As Blatham has advised others, "you have to be wearing a crooked hat to converse with Spendi."

So let's consider him to be not of this class. He gets no grade at all. He is, in a way, auditing with special privileges to make complex points.

I often agree with him, when I can understand him, or more specifically when I have the time to look up his references, which I often don't. I agree with him about what he said about art history and I have little doubt he has his history straight. It certainly fits with the little I know on the subject.

When I do get him, I find he's often addressing the process of an argument by using the content with a twist. He challenges what we assume we know. And I always consider that to be a favor. But he'll never win an election with his style of process observation. And that is what this tread is all about.

Forget the content of the conservative's argument. Focus on how they do what they're doing and find a way to win at that game. It's the only way, IMHO.

But thank you for the tattle, parados. I've always admired a person who will say what they mean, no matter what. And it wasn't a real tattle anyway. To me the word tattle indicates a technique for causing trouble for the sole purpose of causing trouble. Any other use of the word is, I believe an attempt on the part of the user to avoid the telling of the truth. So please, I'm a teacher who encourages that sort of truth telling.....usually. Unless, of course, its timing is politically unwise.

Actually, I hadn't noticed I was the teacher here. But I guess, since it's my thread, and I'm making a recommendation about how to accomplish a certain technique, I guess I am. I know I have been handing out grades. But let's keep in mind that I'm a teacher who is learning as I go along and appreciate the acknowledgement of such from the participants.



P.S. to Spendius:

It would be fun to see you try this exercise in technique. Why don't you give it a go?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 01:58 pm
spendius wrote:
Quote:
There was no monarchy,There were powerful families cutting each others throats.The Borgias,the
Storzas,theMalatestas and the Medicis and some less ruthless ones.They were more like cats and dogs than monarchs.They set Italy back on its heels goodstyle.


Now I will digress, as I have suggested we should not. But I'm tempted to do so by both Foxfire and Spendius, and if it goes on too long, I suggest we move it to another thread.

But Spendius is correct in his quote above. Has anyone read the early history of the Catholic Church, and the papacy, in particular? The Borgias were popes.

Here is but one source:

Quote:
INTRODUCTION

The Borgias were a group of talented men and women whose spectacular rise in Renaissance Italy aroused much envy and hatred among their contemporaries.

BACKGROUND

The Borgias were an Italian family with a Spanish origin. They were brilliant but also evil, ruthless and treacherous.

Rodrigo Borgia was born on Xafiva in Spain in 1431. Rodrigo's favourite son was Cesare, who was born in Italy in 1476. Cesare murdered his brother Juan. He was very vicious and short-tempered and he used his father's power in clever but evil dealings. In 1502 he stole art treasures worth 150 000 ducats ($1 875 000). Cesare was the captain-general of the church. He tried to establish a hereditary monarchy in central Italy. But he made too many enemies and his plans failed, after his father's death in 1503. Cesare was killed in battle in 1507.

Lucreza was the sister of Cesare. Her first marriage, at the age of 13, was to Giovanni Sforza, but it was annulled. She was then married to Alfonso of Aragon. This husband was murdered by Cesare. Her third and last marriage was to the Duke of Ferra.

In the Borgia family there were two popes. The first was Pope Callistus III and the second was Pope Alexander VI. Some enemies of the family were the Medicis, Sforzas, Savonarolas and rulers outside the Italian Peninsula.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Alfonso Borgia became Pope Callistus III in 1455. His nephew, Rodrigo, became Pope Alexander VI in 1492. Rodrigo chose to be called Alexander and became a cardinal at age 25.

Rodrigo was talented, generous, and a wise patron of the arts. He did much for the university and made improvements in Rome. Pope Alexander VI published a bull (a church decree or law) dividing the new world between Spain and Portugal. It promoted peace between them. The Pope proclaimed a year of jubilee. He imposed a tithe for crusades against the Turks.

In 1493 Pope Alexander VI appointed his son, Cesare, a cardinal. Machiavelli modelled his Ideal Statesman after Cesare Borgia. Leonardo da Vinci invented war machines for Cesare. Cesare pillaged the Dukedom of Urbino and took four large cartloads of art treasures which contained tapestries, silver and paintings from the ducal palace. He sold one cartload to help an expedition to the south.

IMPACT

The Borgias were patrons of the arts and they allowed the Renaissance to flourish. Their court attracted the most brilliant personalities.


http://www.yesnet.yk.ca/schools/projects/renaissance/borgia.html

What is not mentioned here is the fact that, according to some historians, Lucrezia was a sexual partner of her father (the pope). Some historians, of which I don't have the time to Google, believe she was also the sexual partner of two of her brothers, Cesare and Juan. Cesare murdered Juan out of jealousy. In any case, they were a complicated family, so to speak. The offspring of Lucrezia and her father, Giovanni (named for Lucrezia's first husband) was used as a pawn for power and died eventually, unknown.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 02:03 pm
Sometimes I get into such a hurry that I don't even notice that I've posted twice.

Bother!
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 02:06 pm
http://www.crimelibrary.com/borgia/borgialucrezia.htm

Quote:
LUCREZIA

1480 - 1519

No single portrait of Lucrezia Borgia captures her contradictory nature more than an allegorical painting by Titian that hangs in the Borghese Gallery in Rome. The painting shows Lucrezia on one edge of a small pool, a naked Venus on the other, and a small cupid between them. The allegory is intended to represent sacred love (Lucrezia) and profane love (Venus). Such is the historical paradox of Lucrezia Borgia.

Lucrezia was the daughter of Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia and his mistress, Vannozza de Cattanei. By the age of eleven, she had been betrothed twice, but both times Rodrigo had rescinded the betrothals. After Rodrigo became Pope Alexander VI, he married her off to Giovanni Sforza, thus establishing an alliance with that powerful Milanese family. The marriage was by proxy, and for four months after her marriage, until the arrival of her new husband in Rome, Lucrezia lived in a handsome palace next to the Vatican with the Pope's new mistress, Guilia Farnese. (Guilia's husband was conveniently away in the Pope's service.) The house was next to the Vatican palace, and Alexander could easily come and go, visiting his daughter and mistress unobserved. A formal wedding ceremony was held shortly after Sforza's arrival, with 500 ladies attending the bride, led by the Pope's mistress. A sumptuous wedding banquet was held, with a work by the ancient Roman playwright Plautus performed, a comedy about libertines, mistresses, and pimps. It was a scandalous event, but not much more opulent than many Renaissance celebrations.

After spending two years as the Countess of Pesaro, located in the region where the Pope had sent his son-in-law on a military expedition, Lucrezia returned to Rome with her husband. She served as her father's hostess at diplomatic receptions. Soon, Giovanni Sforza's presence in the papal court meant nothing, since the Borgias no longer needed the Sforzas. New political alliances made the link to the Sforza family no longer of significance to the pope. Lucrezia, informed by her brother Cesare that Giovanni was to be murdered, warned her husband, and he fled Rome. This may have been a ploy on the part of Cesare and Lucrezia to drive her husband away. Lucrezia was delighted to be rid of her boring husband, and Alexander and Cesare even more delighted with the prospect of arranging another profitable marriage for Lucrezia. Of course, they first had to get rid of Giovanni Sforza.

Lucrezia Borgia by Bartolomeo Veneziano
Alexander swung into action. He asked Giovanni's uncle, Cardinal Ascanio Sforza, to get his nephew to agree to a divorce. Giovanni refused, and turned to others in his powerful Milanese family. They, however, were reluctant to quarrel with the Pope, and knowingly suggested the defense of Giovanni's proving his manhood by sleeping with Lucrezia while observed by members of the Borgia and Sforza families. Giovanni rejected the proposal --- as his relatives knew he would --- and counterattacked. He accused Lucrezia of incest with her father and her brothers, Cesare and Giovanni, the Second Duke of Gandia.

The Pope used the only valid argument for annulment, the non-consummation of the marriage, and he offered his son-in-law all of his daughter's dowry. The head of the Sforza family threatened to withdraw his protection if his nephew refused the Pope's offer. Giovanni Sforza had no choice, and signed a confession of impotence and the documents of annulment before witnesses.

So much for husband number one. He was actually quite fortunate to escape with his life.

During the bargaining over the divorce, Lucrezia retired to a nearby convent, her only communication with her father during her enforced stay being messages brought by a young chamberlain, Perotto. Six months later, pregnant from a liaison with Perotto, Lucrezia participated in a ceremony in which Vatican judges attested that she was intacta, that is, a virgin. Giovanni Sforza gave sworn testimony to this fact, and the divorce was pronounced "final."

Cesare, discovering his sister's pregnancy, was furious. He made a run at the young Perotto with drawn sword, stabbing him as he knelt before the papal throne, splashing Perotto's blood on his father. Perotto survived the attack, but was thrown into prison. A few days later, Burchard reported that Perotto "had fallen into the Tiber against his will." Six days later, Perotto's body was fished out of the river, along with that of Lucrezia's chambermaid, who, it was believed, had facilitated the affair.

The child from this liaison was born in secret, and, when he was finally recognized, was called the infans Romanus. He was named Giovanni, and is a somewhat mysterious figure in the Borgia history. This child did not surface until three years after his birth, when Alexander declared that he was indeed the infans Romanus, the child of Rome, and was the offspring of Cesare and an unknown woman. This first papal bull was followed by a second, which acknowledged that the child was the son of the pope himself, even though the pope would have been sixty-seven at the time of the child's conception. The purpose of the papal bulls was to give Alexander the excuse to name the young Giovanni the heir to the duchy of Nepi, a property important to the Borgia family. This subterfuge to legitimize the infans Romanus simply led people to assume that the boy was the child of Lucrezia and Alexander, or of Lucrezia and Cesare. The historian Potigliotti suggests that Lucrezia insisted on the two papal bulls because she didn't know which of her two lovers, her father or her brother, had actually fathered the child. Giovanni was passed from guardian to guardian, eventually ending up with Lucrezia in Ferrara as "her half brother." The unfortunate Giovanni never inherited his titles, and, after a lifetime of serving as a minor functionary in the courts of the Vatican and France, died relatively unknown in 1548. The rumor of incest as his origin was begun with Lucrezia's first husband's attack on his former in-laws, and has persisted to this day. It may be true, or it may be that he was the offspring of Lucrezia's indiscretion with Perotto.

Later that year, Lucrezia was married to the seventeen-year-old Prince of Aragon, Alfonso, in Naples, allowing Alexander to forge another alliance with a second important kingdom. Alfonso was the Duke of Bisceglie, an important principality in the Kingdom of Naples. The second wedding feast was as sumptuous as the first, and the two seventeen-year-olds were plainly happy.

As was so often the case at that period of history, political allegiances began to reform, to change, so that ally became adversary. Alfonso, Duke of Bisceglie, suddenly found himself and his family out of favor, as Alexander turned his support to the enemies of Naples. While the Pope assured his son-in-law that he was still in favor --- even giving the young couple a castle, along with the city and lands of Nepi --- Alfonso knew that all was not well. For one thing, Alexander had given the governorship of Spoleto and Foligno, an office usually reserved for cardinals, to Lucrezia, essentially rendering Alfonso as a non-functioning consort. Lucrezia, although only nineteen, was not a mere figurehead, and administered the city well. After a few months, the Pope persuaded his daughter and her husband to return to Rome, to await the birth of the couple's first child, who would be named after her father, Rodrigo.

Not long after, Alfonso, crossing St. Peter's Square, was set upon by a group of armed men. He was seriously wounded and left for dead, but brought into the Vatican apartments to be attended by his wife, Lucrezia. Lucrezia was genuinely distraught, and stayed by her husband's bedside, fully realizing that her brother, Cesare, was behind the attack. Under his wife's tender care, Alfonso almost recovered. Unfortunately, he was visited by his brother-in-law, who ordered Lucrezia, his sister-in-law, Sancia, and the servants out of the room. According to accounts, Cesare ordered his principal henchman to strangle Alfonso. Alexander, seeing his daughter and daughter-in-law fleeing the bedroom in terror, sent his chamberlains to try to prevent the murder. By the time they arrived, it was too late. As Burchard reported, "Since Don Alfonso refused to die of his wounds, he was strangled in his bed."

So much for husband number two. He had not been as fortunate as husband number one.

A year later, while surveying his new acquisitions resulting from the defeat of Alfonso's father, Federigo, King of Naples, Alexander left the administration of the Vatican and the Church in the hands of Lucrezia. A woman of twenty-one, acting as the head of Christendom, did not shock the cardinals of the Curia, accustomed as they were to the excesses of the papacy of Alexander. The Pope was busy amassing money to finance the military adventures of Cesare, and to obtain a grand dowry for Lucrezia, whom he hoped to marry off to a third husband, this time, if possible, to royalty.

Cesare made the selection. The Prince and heir to the duchy of Ferrarra --- a city-state adjacent to Cesare's province of Romagna --- was available. He was twenty-four, and a childless widower. Lucrezia, just twenty-one, would be perfect for him. In return for a huge dowry and the repeal of his papal tax, the Duke of Ferrarra agreed to the marriage. Lucrezia had her third, and final, husband.

Afonso d'Este, the Prince of Ferrara, was a strong silent type, interested in artillery, music and brothels, and was soon captivated by his new wife. A courtier described Lucrezia:

"She is of middle height and graceful of form; her face is rather long, as is her nose; her hair is golden, her eyes gray, her mouth rather large, the teeth brilliantly white, her bosom smooth and white and admirably proportioned. Her whole being exudes good humor and gaiety."

--- Niccolo Cagnolo (as reported in Cloulas)

From this point on, Lucrezia became a loving wife and admired mother.

Except for a few things. While she pleased her husband and had four children by him, she carried on a romance with the poet Pietro Bembo. Whether it was a physical affair or a platonic romance is not clear, but it temporarily aroused the suspicions of her husband. After Bembo left Ferrara for Venice, his letters to Lucrezia became more formal, and, by 1505, the association was over. Curiously, her relationship with Bembo conferred upon her an artistic sensibility that increased her reputation in Ferrara.

Lucrezia sided with her brother in his various military adventures, and when Cesare died, she was devastated. She set about establishing protection for Rodrigo, her son by her second husband, and "her brother," the mysterious Giovanni, infans Romanus. Against her husband's wishes, she brought them to Ferrara, where they joined the teeming household. Eventually, the two young boys were sent to Isabella of Aragon, who promised to see to their education. Rodrigo died in 1512, at the age of thirteen, and Lucrezia retired in grief to a convent. After a time, she returned to her husband.

After giving birth to her fifth child while in Ferrara, who died shortly after being born, Lucrezia contracted puerperal fever, and died on June 24, 1519. She was not quite thirty-nine years old.

So, Lucrezia, accused of participating in the murders carried out by her father and brother, accused of incest with either her father or brother (or both), died a pious and respected consort of the Duke of Ferrara. One of her sons, Ercole, succeeded his father as Duke, and another, Ippolito, became a cardinal. Both were known for their love of luxury, and, as such, carried on the Borgia tradition of material excess.


Many will not have time to read this, or the interest, but if you do, I think it's very interesting.
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 02:25 pm
Not to disturb your thread but I'd like to add this :

Renaissance was not limited to Italy and those families.

Kingdoms were all over Europe at the time, hence monarchy.

For example, some german painters :

Hans Multscher (1400-1467)
Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528)
Lucas Cranach (1472-1533)
Albrecht Altdorfer (1480-1538)
Hans Baldung, (1484-1545)
Bartholomäus Bruyn (1493-1555)
Hans Holbein (1497-1543)

More than that, Renaissance was not limited to painters but to other arts as well.

The word Renaissance (french rebirth) was used at first by Jacob Burckhardt in his work The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy

The link is somehow connected with debates going on many threads.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 02:32 pm
[The 'Weser-Renaissance' is a North-German architectural style for instance. - Renaissance book art is famous as well.]
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 05:09 pm
Yes the Renaissance spread throughout western Europe which is why I mentioned France and Spain et al.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 05:51 pm
Francis wrote:
Not to disturb your thread but I'd like to add this :

Renaissance was not limited to Italy and those families.

Kingdoms were all over Europe at the time, hence monarchy.

For example, some german painters :

Hans Multscher (1400-1467)
Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528)
Lucas Cranach (1472-1533)
Albrecht Altdorfer (1480-1538)
Hans Baldung, (1484-1545)
Bartholomäus Bruyn (1493-1555)
Hans Holbein (1497-1543)

More than that, Renaissance was not limited to painters but to other arts as well.

The word Renaissance (french rebirth) was used at first by Jacob Burckhardt in his work The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy

The link is somehow connected with debates going on many threads.


Here's an excerpt from the link provided by Francis:

Quote:
It is obvious that this purely rational treatment of warlike affairs allowed, under certain circumstances, of the worst atrocities, even in the absence of a strong political hatred, as, for instance, when the plunder of a city had been promised to the troops. After the forty days' devastation of Piacenza, which Sforza was compelled to permit to his soldiers (1477), the town long stood empty, and at last had to be peopled by force. Yet outrages like these were nothing compared with the misery which was afterwards brought upon Italy by foreign troops, and most of all by the Spaniards, in whom perhaps a touch of oriental blood, perhaps familiarity with the spectacles of the Inquisition, had unloosed the devilish element of human nature. After seeing them at work at Prato, Rome, and elsewhere, it is not easy to take any interest of the higher sort in Ferdinand the Catholic and Charles V who knew what these hordes were, and yet unchained them. The mass of documents which are gradually brought to light from the cabinets of these rulers will always remain an important source of historical information; but from such men no fruitful political conception can be looked for.


The subject is not the painters or architechs themselves, but rather their patrons and what they were up to. I don't know about the German patrons, but the Italians were certainly having trouble with their moral compass, just as the conservative republicans are today.

Now back to the subject of this thread which is how to use Rovian techniques against Rove.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 11:23 pm
Here's something for us to chew on. If you're caught red handed, simply say that you've done nothing wrong. Do so with authority, especially if you can do so through a spokesman. Deny everything.

And if the ethics committee gets in the way, fire the chairman and dismantle the committee. That Tom DeLay, he's a real winner.


Administration Rejects Ruling On PR Videos
GAO Called Tapes Illegal Propaganda
By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A21

Quote:
The Bush administration, rejecting an opinion from the Government
Accountability Office, said last week that it is legal for federal
agencies to feed TV stations prepackaged news stories that do not
disclose the government's role in producing them.

That message, in memos sent Friday to federal agency heads and general
counsels, contradicts a Feb. 17 memo from Comptroller General David M.
Walker. Walker wrote that such stories -- designed to resemble
independently reported broadcast news stories so that TV stations can
run them without editing -- violate provisions in annual appropriations
laws that ban covert propaganda.

But Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget,
and Steven G. Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general at
the Justice Department, said in memos last week that the administration
disagrees with the GAO's ruling. And, in any case, they wrote, the
department's Office of Legal Counsel, not the GAO, the investigative arm
of Congress, provides binding legal interpretations for federal agencies
to follow.

The legal counsel's office "does not agree with GAO that the covert
propaganda prohibition applies simply because an agency's role in
producing and disseminating information is undisclosed or 'covert,'
regardless of whether the content of the message is 'propaganda,' "
Bradbury wrote. "Our view is that the prohibition does not apply where
there is no advocacy of a particular viewpoint, and therefore it does
not apply to the legitimate provision of information concerning the
programs administered by an agency."

The existence of the memos was reported Sunday by the New York Times.

Supporters say prepackaged news stories are a common public relations
tool with roots in previous administrations, that their exterior
packaging typically identifies the government as the source, and that it
is up to news organizations, not the government, to reveal to viewers
where the material they broadcast came from.

Critics have derided such video news releases as taxpayer-financed
attempts by the administration to promote its policies in the guise of
independent news reports.

Within the last year, the GAO has rapped the Department of Health and
Human Services and the Office of National Drug Control Policy for
distributing such stories about the Medicare drug benefit and the
administration's anti-drug campaign, respectively.

In an interview yesterday, Walker said the administration's approach is
both contrary to appropriations law and unethical.

"This is more than a legal issue. It's also an ethical issue and
involves important good government principles, namely the need for
openness in connection with government activities and expenditures,"
Walker said. "We should not just be seeking to do what's arguably legal.
We should be doing what's right."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said yesterday that federal
agencies have used video news releases for years. "As long as they are
providing factual information, it's okay," he said.

Walker said that even by that standard, some prepackaged news stories
are out of bounds.

"Congress has got to settle it -- either Congress or the courts," Walker
said. "Congress may need to provide additional guidance with regard to
their intent in this overall area."

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said through a spokesman yesterday that
he will try to attach language to an appropriations bill to clarify that
taxpayer money cannot be spent on such productions. He and fellow
Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) wrote to President Bush
yesterday asking him to pull back the new memos from Justice and the
OMB.

They noted that following revelations this year that the Education
Department had paid conservative commentator Armstrong Williams to
promote the No Child Left Behind law, Bush had directed agencies to
abandon such clandestine public relations practices.

"Whether in the form of a payment to an actual journalist, or through
the creation of a fake one, it is wrong to deceive the public with the
creation of phony news stories," the lawmakers wrote.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 06:39 am
Lola:-

The only time I'm ever hung up is when I come down the staircase by swinging myself from a low slung chandelier on my way to the pub.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 06:51 am
parados:-

You made that sound like a large amount of emotional build up had been released.

You needn't bother.I don't mind at all getting F- from wassocks.In fact I rather like it.I think being bottom of the class a rather superior position.Fancy being highly approved of by bloody useless teachers.That would really piss me off.I'd consider taking a revolver into my study if I got a gold star.
Pits of the earth are teachers.Didn't you know that?
They live on assertions.
I don't include Jesuit priests in that.They are not teachers.They are moulders of men and by heck they are **** hot at it.And only the well off can afford them plus a few competitive scholarships funded by the likes of Cecil Rhodes.The rest of it isn't worth a blow on a ragman's trumpet.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 07:47 am
Mentioning Cecil Rhodes reminded me that he practised conservative argument techniques properly.One presumes you all know about the Rhodes scholars.Bill Clinton was one.I know some people think that Mr Rhodes looted the cash but that's all water under the bridge now.He left enough money in a foundation to try to make sure that a few Americans received a decent education if they were deemed to deserve it.One thing is for sure and that is that money talks.Some say swears.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 08:07 am
You are pretty loose, spendius. I agree. But keep in mind that it's possible to lie by telling the truth.

That is, it's possible to be hung up by the method of chandelier swinging.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 09:47 am
Lola;-

No.It's the quickest way to descend the staircase and my adrenaline flows on the way to the pub.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Tonight's VP debate - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Debate Topic - Question by silhouette
So, what am I missing? - Discussion by The Pentacle Queen
Suffering - Discussion by EmilySue77
Intellectual confidence. - Discussion by The Pentacle Queen
Is euthanasia acceptable? - Discussion by Starchild
Presidential Debate: Final Round! - Discussion by Diest TKO
Rhetoric and Fallacy: A Game For Debaters - Discussion by Diest TKO
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/07/2024 at 12:21:02