Re: a
Gelisgesti wrote:Sofia, if you would turn off Rush and pick up a paper you would know that several Dems have made suggestions, most notably Biden.
It was good to hear you suggest there may be a problem with the way Georgie is running the show
That was a small-minded, incorrect assumption. I don't listen to talk radio, but do read the papers, trying to find what, if anything, the Democrat candidates have in mind about Iraq. So, Biden has ideas. Is he running now?
I don't know why you bother to name me in your response. Your content had nothing to do with me, or my comment.
Timber wrote:
No.
Biden Bows Out
Suspicians confirmed----Biden is probably the brightest bulb in a lackluster field of prospective candidates.
Sofia, how did you know I wasn't talking about 'Rush' the rock group instead of the fat guy on talk radio that wouldn't know tha truth if it bit him in the tuckus? Why do you assume that only presidential candidates voted to stand behind the man appointed to be President in our country's hour of need .... although unaware that the hour of need was only a series of fabrications not truth, as you would expect from a real President.
Why do you rule out Biden as a candidate? That .... that is small minded thinking.
Gelisgesti wrote:Why do you rule out Biden as a candidate? That .... that is small minded thinking.
I musta missed the reference to which you alude ... I hadn't noticed anyone ruling Biden out, other than he himself. So does Biden announcing his his non-candidacy this morning render him in your mind a small thinker? Just curious.
a
That's funny, I read the statement as:
"At this moment, my instincts tell me that the best way for me to work to enhance America's national security and to fight for economic security for the middle class is to remain in the United States Senate,"
It's called p o l i t i c s....... can you say p o l i t i c s
Gelisgesti -- I actually disagree with you. Rush (the fat guy) does know what the truth is. That's why he bills himself as an entertainer. Once in a while I remember lucking into a Rush show (years ago, when he was pretty new and not such a codpiece) where for the whole show he had people convinced he'd decided to become a Dem. It was very funny, got him a lot of flack, and was done with the same attitude and panache as his conservative persona. It convinced me that though he may well vote Republican, he really doesn't give a s**t as long as he is identified with power. He's just a guy with a greasy mouth and the smarts who has built a persona and influence and is getting paid a lot for it. His only real conviction is, "I won! I've got the bucks! These fruits buy me dinner!" If you can ever get hold of a tape of that show, listen to it.
Tartarin wrote:I remember lucking into a Rush show (years ago, when he was pretty new and not such a codpiece)
So he was the object in Bush's flight suit, hmmmmm!
I love the way he will say, in just about every broadcast, 'did you catch the story about Bill cllinton's attempted rape of a 87 year old nun'? < sound of rustling papers > well I had the story right here .... tell you what, I'll make sure I find it by the end of the show so I can tell you where it came from' ....
He then proceeds with the story but never ever tells the source. Class act.
Then, Gel, perhaps you should stop listening to Rush.
The rock band or the fat guy
blatham wrote:What I too awkwardly and too quickly wished to suggest is that this administration ... is concerned with 'presentation' and not truth. And they have become expert at utilizing the modern media as symbiotic associates. This so clearly short circuits democracy because the electorate is then making decisions based not on truthful appraisals or accounts, but rather, on what those in charge wish the electorate to believe.
Hmmm. I think we've stumbled onto an area of agreement here. (Partial agreement, at least.) I agree with the statement I've highlighted in blue, bold text above, though I would rewrite it to read "too concerned with presentation and not concerned enough with simply stating the facts". Where we may disagree is that this is a qualm I have with government and politicians in general, and something I do not see this administration doing any more or less than did the previous administration. I suspect it may seem more egregious to you now because I suspect you agreed more with the spin coming from Clinton than you do with the spin coming from Bush.
I also agree with the second statement (red and bold) above. It captures my complaint with media bias quite eloquently. Perhaps we can both agree that when a sufficient volume of news reporting is adulterated by a common political bias it can lead the electorate to make bad decisions at the polls, because they are basing those decisions on flawed or false information. Any pervasive media bias is therefor a bad thing.
Perception is everything. It's also whatever it is perceived to be. What is perceived to be as clear and logical thinking quite often turns out to be muddy and illogical.
Perhaps the perception of the democrats from the republican side is no more accurate nor clear that the democrats' perception of the republicans.
It does seem today, howvever, that the republicans are adopting an ever more defensive attitude. And a defensive attitude indicates many things, including a deaf ear to anything but the desiredopinion.
unfortunately for that sort of narrative one is required to show pertainent facts to support it.
the bush administration has lied and distorted information about war, the budget, foreign and domestic intelligence matters, stem cell research, reproductive rights, and the environment. it has gone to court to prevent the congress itself a watchdog on the executive and judiciary from obtaining information the congress feels is in the best interests of the nation to know concerning an array of things, particularly information about energy and environmental policies, intelligence issues related to the 911 attacks, and the incarceration of US citizens without current prospect for indictment and being denied the right to see an attorney.
the clinton administration never cooked the budget books, or mislead the congress and public about fiscal policies (probably why business did better in the '90's, too) nor lied about why clinton took the country's armed forces into kosovo or bosnia, and was open about why it attacked iraq in 1998 and sudan.
clinton did lie about a blow job, which according to some is apparently a cause for equal and even greater reprobation than bush lying about and manipulating data to show how the tax cuts would not cause a deficit budget which is now expected to be between $500- $900 Billion a year and consciously lying about who would receive the benefits of such tax cuts or lying about going to war, and spending a $billion a week to do it, with no end in sight for withdrawal at less than 5 years according the joint chiefs of staff of the US armed forces.
an attempt at posing some sort of moral equivalence of the current and past adminstrations because "both lied" is suspect based upon most available information.
All in the perception, kuvasz. Kind of interesting that we're back to discussing variations of what "is" is.
That was a reasonable post, mamaj.
To this--
And a defensive attitude indicates many things, including a deaf ear to anything but the desired opinion
I would suggest: A defense may indicate a response to an offense.
The Dem chorus has gotten loud--no fault there--but don't expect it to exist in a vaccuum.
Funny, this happens in courts throughout America every day - it is what makes lawyers rich - convincing juries what the meaning of is "is" ! But a President (a real President) can't say that - go figure!
Clinton should be off the hook about Monica.
I'd much rather him explain the information he allowed China to get, and the fundraising teas and Buddist temples.
No evidence anything happen and it was investigated completely. Now, I want to hear about Cheney, Oil, Iraq and the destruction of California - Real GRAFT!!!! Ahhhhhh, the coverup!
