Yesterday, pedestrians walking down 78th street might have noted a little pile of dogpoop in the gutter. Those who happened to see it had the option of ignoring this biological incidental or picking it up, rolling it around in their fingers, giving it a bit of a sniff or engaging the stuff in some way. Massagato/Bernard's posts present a similar option.
We note the weekend's concerted and choreographed administration attack on the NY Times and LA Times coverage of the banking records matter. The strategy is in no way unusual. There's an operational rule in place as a standard operating procedure for this administration and its supporters which can be explicated as "Never defend or apologize or admit errors/mistakes. Always attack immediately any criticism particularly where that criticism might effect popularity or those myths you need the electorate to believe. Always suggest explicitly or implicitly that such criticism is treasonous and threatens security. Continue to forward the notion that an 'independent press' which says or does or reveals anything you don't want them to say or do or reveal constitutes further evidence that they (perhaps as unwitting agents of evil-doer propaganda or merely from weakness of character) really hate America."
Advantage one: attention is taken off the matter revealed/discussed.
Advantage two: future revelations are less likely to be counted as factual or unbiased or rational.
Advantage three: simplistic (and false) narratives which forward a binary frame of reference (good guys/bad guys) are promoted in the civil discourse and this faciliates the notion that the press (or whistleblowers) are only partisan agents because that is all they can be, that is all which can be possible, in a binary frame of reference.
Advantage four: rational criteria for establishing 'facts' or 'evidence' or 'authoritative sources' are purposefully bypassed and replaced by a criterion which awards merit or rationality dependent upon which "side" is either lauded or criticized. Thus an international consensus, or a science panel report, or a press revelation of administration behavior, or a poll, or any such can be immediately discounted REGARDLESS OF ALL ELSE if the position taken seems to counter the administration's words, claims or desires.
Advantage five: the advantage that can accrue from any instance of bullying behavior...even if the target of the bullying continues to speak, investigate, etc, it may well now do so less often or less agressively. (This strategy has been explicitly acknowledged by Pat Buchanan and Bill Kristol who refer to it as "working the refs".)
0 Replies
BernardR
1
Reply
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 11:31 am
Old Europe_ Don't try to hide--YOU are the one who said on this thread that you had a discussion with me on the subject a while ago. You certainly did not mean to say that you bested me on it, did you? If you did not then I will leave the subject alone, but If youthink you did I am ready to eviscerate your puerile arguments on the subject.
It would seem that people like Old Europe and, yes, Blatham, are fonts of wisdom and reason. It would appear that they are ready, as learned sages, to show how their arguments prevail. It might be deduced that Old Europe and Blatham, as erudite scholars, could turn around an argument in a short while by using pertinent arguments.
Yet, they are probably both pseudo-intellectuals, who, when faced with arguments they cannot counter, spew out such puerile garbage(incidentally, prohibited by the TOS) as:
Blatham wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday, pedestrians walking down 78th street might have noted a little pile of dogpoop in the gutter. Those who happened to see it had the option of ignoring this biological incidental or picking it up, rolling it around in their fingers, giving it a bit of a sniff or engaging the stuff in some way. Massagato/Bernard's posts present a similar option.
___________________________________________________________
A good piece of imaginative fiction but not at all pertaining to the argument. I must conclude that Blatham and Old Europe, even given all of their scholarly gifts, are thoroughly frightened of engaging me in debate.
What they don't know is that me delight is to rub their noses in it for the appreciation of such hearties as Finn, Ticomaya, Okie, Asherman and Okie, who, I am sure, delight in seeing the fear which inspires paragraphs on "dogpoop" instead of rational debate.
0 Replies
blatham
1
Reply
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 12:31 pm
Earlier here (and elsewhere) whoda and finn suggested that there was no reasonable cause to question electronic voting systems...
Yet quite possibly, the problems or potential problems with electronic machines are considerably less significant (as regards abuse) than other voter disenfranchisement strategies such as have been documented in Florida and Ohio.
0 Replies
okie
1
Reply
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 02:10 pm
blatham wrote:
Yet quite possibly, the problems or potential problems with electronic machines are considerably less significant (as regards abuse) than other voter disenfranchisement strategies such as have been documented in Florida and Ohio.
If you really wish to talk about election fraud honestly, it would be a different matter, blatham, but your side does not. You take a shred of some misconseption and then twist it into something. What about illegals voting in California and probably other places, as enabled by the Democratic machine. How about polling places being kept open in St. Louis way past the allotted legal time? What about accusations of blocking of voters in Florida, none of which was ever provided any evidence for? What about the Democrats suggesting that military votes not be counted in Florida? What about Democrats asking for a state recount of only selected precincts in Florida, something that is against election laws. What about the hanging chad fiasco - using twisted partisan logic? What about liberal news agencies declaring a winner in Florida before all polls closed when the vote totals totally disagreed with their conclusion, thus discouraging voters in conservative Florida panhandle areas in a later time zone - was this an honest mistake or a partisan agenda at work? And last but not least, what about illegal foreign campaign contributions to the Democratic Party? This list could be alot longer, but suffice it for now.
This whole thread is nothing more than fictitious leftist paranoia. None of your fears are placed in context with history. None of your fears amount to a hill of beans.
0 Replies
BernardR
1
Reply
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 02:45 pm
Okie- Mr. Blatham apparently does not know that the New York Times( surely, a left wing newspaper, and a consortium of other leading newspapers, accompanied by experts in statistics went to Florida after the 2000 election and came up with the finding that the USSC did not elect Mt. Bush but that even if the FOUR SOUTHERN FLORIDA COUNTIES had been recounted as Mr. Gore's suit had requested, Mr. Bush would have won. The Article in the New York Times( which I previously referenced on a thread on this venue) went on to indicate that it MIGHT have been possible for Mr. Gore to have won IF all of the counties of Florida were recounted and then only IF the duly authorized election officials in each of the central counties(most of whom were Republicans) would have made exactly the same decisions on questionable chads, etc. that the consortium's group made. BUT, OKIE, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE REALIZE( Something that Mr. Blatham either does not want to admit or does not know) that, according to existing law, it would have been impossible for the entire state to be recounted because of the Safe-Harbor law. The Safe Harbor law, Okie, is the law which declares that if electors are not named by a certain date--December 12 was the date in Florida--the legislature( STAUNCHLY REPUBLICAN MARJORITY) would name thier own electors who would, of course, voted for George W. Bush.
In fact, Okie, the LAWYERS FOR GORE, as is referenced in the New York Times Article mentioned above, ADVISED Mr. Gore NOT to press for a full state wide recount.
Why? The Safe Harbor Law which would have made Gore's new suit moot!
Be careful, Okie, when you show Mr. Blatham that he is in error he will liken you to a piece of excrement. I am sure that you will not be offended and will understand that such a reaction means you have won the argument!!!
0 Replies
BernardR
1
Reply
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 03:06 pm
Okie- Mr. Blatham apparently does not know that the New York Times( surely, a left wing newspaper, and a consortium of other leading newspapers, accompanied by experts in statistics went to Florida after the 2000 election and came up with the finding that the USSC did not elect Mt. Bush but that even if the FOUR SOUTHERN FLORIDA COUNTIES had been recounted as Mr. Gore's suit had requested, Mr. Bush would have won. The Article in the New York Times( which I previously referenced on a thread on this venue) went on to indicate that it MIGHT have been possible for Mr. Gore to have won IF all of the counties of Florida were recounted and then only IF the duly authorized election officials in each of the central counties(most of whom were Republicans) would have made exactly the same decisions on questionable chads, etc. that the consortium's group made. BUT, OKIE, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE REALIZE( Something that Mr. Blatham either does not want to admit or does not know) that, according to existing law, it would have been impossible for the entire state to be recounted because of the Safe-Harbor law. The Safe Harbor law, Okie, is the law which declares that if electors are not named by a certain date--December 12 was the date in Florida--the legislature( STAUNCHLY REPUBLICAN MARJORITY) would name thier own electors who would, of course, voted for George W. Bush.
In fact, Okie, the LAWYERS FOR GORE, as is referenced in the New York Times Article mentioned above, ADVISED Mr. Gore NOT to press for a full state wide recount.
Why? The Safe Harbor Law which would have made Gore's new suit moot!
Be careful, Okie, when you show Mr. Blatham that he is in error he will liken you to a piece of excrement. I am sure that you will not be offended and will understand that such a reaction means you have won the argument!!!
0 Replies
BernardR
1
Reply
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 03:12 pm
Okie- Mr. Blatham apparently does not know that the New York Times( surely, a left wing newspaper, and a consortium of other leading newspapers, accompanied by experts in statistics went to Florida after the 2000 election and came up with the finding that the USSC did not elect Mt. Bush but that even if the FOUR SOUTHERN FLORIDA COUNTIES had been recounted as Mr. Gore's suit had requested, Mr. Bush would have won. The Article in the New York Times( which I previously referenced on a thread on this venue) went on to indicate that it MIGHT have been possible for Mr. Gore to have won IF all of the counties of Florida were recounted and then only IF the duly authorized election officials in each of the central counties(most of whom were Republicans) would have made exactly the same decisions on questionable chads, etc. that the consortium's group made. BUT, OKIE, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE REALIZE( Something that Mr. Blatham either does not want to admit or does not know) that, according to existing law, it would have been impossible for the entire state to be recounted because of the Safe-Harbor law. The Safe Harbor law, Okie, is the law which declares that if electors are not named by a certain date--December 12 was the date in Florida--the legislature( STAUNCHLY REPUBLICAN MARJORITY) would name thier own electors who would, of course, voted for George W. Bush.
In fact, Okie, the LAWYERS FOR GORE, as is referenced in the New York Times Article mentioned above, ADVISED Mr. Gore NOT to press for a full state wide recount.
Why? The Safe Harbor Law which would have made Gore's new suit moot!
Be careful, Okie, when you show Mr. Blatham that he is in error he will liken you to a piece of excrement. I am sure that you will not be offended and will understand that such a reaction means you have won the argument!!!
0 Replies
BernardR
1
Reply
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 03:12 pm
Okie- Mr. Blatham apparently does not know that the New York Times( surely, a left wing newspaper, and a consortium of other leading newspapers, accompanied by experts in statistics went to Florida after the 2000 election and came up with the finding that the USSC did not elect Mt. Bush but that even if the FOUR SOUTHERN FLORIDA COUNTIES had been recounted as Mr. Gore's suit had requested, Mr. Bush would have won. The Article in the New York Times( which I previously referenced on a thread on this venue) went on to indicate that it MIGHT have been possible for Mr. Gore to have won IF all of the counties of Florida were recounted and then only IF the duly authorized election officials in each of the central counties(most of whom were Republicans) would have made exactly the same decisions on questionable chads, etc. that the consortium's group made. BUT, OKIE, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE REALIZE( Something that Mr. Blatham either does not want to admit or does not know) that, according to existing law, it would have been impossible for the entire state to be recounted because of the Safe-Harbor law. The Safe Harbor law, Okie, is the law which declares that if electors are not named by a certain date--December 12 was the date in Florida--the legislature( STAUNCHLY REPUBLICAN MARJORITY) would name thier own electors who would, of course, voted for George W. Bush.
In fact, Okie, the LAWYERS FOR GORE, as is referenced in the New York Times Article mentioned above, ADVISED Mr. Gore NOT to press for a full state wide recount.
Why? The Safe Harbor Law which would have made Gore's new suit moot!
Be careful, Okie, when you show Mr. Blatham that he is in error he will liken you to a piece of excrement. I am sure that you will not be offended and will understand that such a reaction means you have won the argument!!!
0 Replies
plainoldme
1
Reply
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 05:31 pm
Blatham -- Have you ever seen any evidence of this alleged left wing press?
If there were such an animal, guess who would be in the WH today!
0 Replies
blatham
1
Reply
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 06:11 pm
POM
I've read a fair bit on the matter. It's really not an easy thing to measure but there are ways to go about it with integrity. For example, one can survey daily newspapers in the US and get figures on how many editorial pages came out supporting the dem candidate for President or the repub candidate. But the two clucks above won't like the result of that measurement for the last election.
0 Replies
okie
1
Reply
Wed 28 Jun, 2006 09:51 pm
plainoldme wrote:
Blatham -- Have you ever seen any evidence of this alleged left wing press?
If there were such an animal, guess who would be in the WH today!
Polls show (we all know that some people here on this forum love polls) that a clear majority of journalists are liberal rather than conservative. The reports I've seen indicate about 80 to 90% of journalists are more liberal than conservative. This of course is not consistent with the general population of the country, which is why conservatives are not very happy with so-called "news" reporting because they see the obvious bias. Liberals on the other hand see no bias because they are unable to recognize the obvious. They think liberal bias is normal, average, and mainstream.
Okie-You are correct--80 to 90% of all reporters lean to the liberal side.
Mr, Blatham and Madame Plain Ol Me are obviously ignorant about this fact. Madame Plain Ol Me says that there is no evidence of a left wing press and if there were, guess who would be in the White House today.
Okie- Her ignorance is amazing.
The Roper Center found that 89 percent of Journalists voted for Bill Clinton in 1992.
But, she and Mr. Blatham do not know that most of the influential papers did indeed endorse the Undertaker, Senator Kerry--
I hope that Madame Plain Ol Me is not so ignorant that she does not know that the most influential newspaper in the USA, the New York Times, ALWAYS endorses Democrats.
But, anyway, Okie, here is the evidence to educate Mr. Blatham and Madame Plain Ol Me.
Newspapers choose their candidates
More newspapers weighed in Sunday with endorsements of President Bush or Sen. John Kerry.
Among those favoring Bush: the Chicago Tribune, Indianapolis Star, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Grand Rapids (Mich.) Press and Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch.
Those backing Kerry include The Boston Globe, Minneapolis Star Tribune, New York Times, Miami Herald, Kansas City (Mo.) Star, St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times,Akron (Ohio) Beacon Journal, Florida Today, Palm Beach (Fla.) Post and Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel.
There, Okie, is Plain Ol Me's phantom left wing press. The only problem is that she obviously has not read enough on politics to realize it!!!
0 Replies
Magginkat
1
Reply
Fri 30 Jun, 2006 09:48 am
BernardR wrote:
Okie- Mr. Blatham apparently does not know that the New York Times( surely, a left wing newspaper, and a consortium of other leading newspapers, accompanied by experts in statistics went to Florida after the 2000 election and came up with the finding that the USSC did not elect Mt. Bush but that even if the FOUR SOUTHERN FLORIDA COUNTIES had been recounted as Mr. Gore's suit had requested, Mr. Bush would have won. The Article in the New York Times( which I previously referenced on a thread on this venue) went on to indicate that it MIGHT have been possible for Mr. Gore to have won IF all of the counties of Florida were recounted and then only IF the duly authorized election officials in each of the central counties(most of whom were Republicans) would have made exactly the same decisions on questionable chads, etc. that the consortium's group made. BUT, OKIE, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE REALIZE( Something that Mr. Blatham either does not want to admit or does not know) that, according to existing law, it would have been impossible for the entire state to be recounted because of the Safe-Harbor law. The Safe Harbor law, Okie, is the law which declares that if electors are not named by a certain date--December 12 was the date in Florida--the legislature( STAUNCHLY REPUBLICAN MARJORITY) would name thier own electors who would, of course, voted for George W. Bush.
In fact, Okie, the LAWYERS FOR GORE, as is referenced in the New York Times Article mentioned above, ADVISED Mr. Gore NOT to press for a full state wide recount.
Why? The Safe Harbor Law which would have made Gore's new suit moot!
Be careful, Okie, when you show Mr. Blatham that he is in error he will liken you to a piece of excrement. I am sure that you will not be offended and will understand that such a reaction means you have won the argument!!!
So now massagatto is the all knowing authority on Florida's vote fraud fiasco eh? I suggest that MassagattoBernard is as full of hot air as ever.
Yep... the NY Times and most other papers in the country said that bu$h won and only if you went to page 18 or further did you discover that if the votes had been counted bu$h lost by thousands.
You can post what you will to try to keep yourself convinced MassaBernard, but the fact is that bu$h has probably never won any election in his entire life. Everything he has "accomplised" (Sarcasm intended) has been through direct purchase or dirty devious tricks to make things seem to be something they are not.
We have a deceitful, conniving, dirty, nasty, low-life, murdering thug occupying the White House and people of the same ilk is what put him there.
If the shoe fits BernardMassa..... wear it.
0 Replies
Magginkat
1
Reply
Fri 30 Jun, 2006 09:56 am
blatham wrote:
Earlier here (and elsewhere) whoda and finn suggested that there was no reasonable cause to question electronic voting systems...
Yet quite possibly, the problems or potential problems with electronic machines are considerably less significant (as regards abuse) than other voter disenfranchisement strategies such as have been documented in Florida and Ohio.
Blatham,
We both know that the Bernard/Mass,Okie, etc., cheering section will swear by these machines until they put a Democrat in the White House, then all hell will break loose.
They will swear on a stack of Bibles that these damn machines are the cause of all evil in this world.
The Repugnant noise machine is famous for it's flip-flops, about faces, Cut and Run, etc. Of course all of this is the fault of former President Clinton. If he had never had that BJ, everything would be alright with the world.
AND I have a bridge for sale in the middle of the Sahara!
0 Replies
okie
1
Reply
Fri 30 Jun, 2006 09:59 am
In regard to voting machines, I have never backed computer, paperless voting. I support voting that produces a full paper record of the votes.
I love computers, but I see them as only playing a role in tabulating votes, with proper oversight of course. Bottom line, I want to have something in black and white, plain for everybody to see and witness if recounts have to be done.
0 Replies
plainoldme
1
Reply
Fri 30 Jun, 2006 11:28 am
blatham wrote:
POM
I've read a fair bit on the matter. It's really not an easy thing to measure but there are ways to go about it with integrity. For example, one can survey daily newspapers in the US and get figures on how many editorial pages came out supporting the dem candidate for President or the repub candidate. But the two clucks above won't like the result of that measurement for the last election.
Supporting the "dem candidate" does not make a paper "left wing."
0 Replies
plainoldme
1
Reply
Fri 30 Jun, 2006 11:32 am
old europe -- As MIT professor and family friend William Thilly says, "For every Ph.D., there is an equal and opposite Ph.D." However, Dr. Thilly is happy to note that the balance has tilted in favor of the Ph.D.s who are aware that global warming is real, man-made and a threat to life on this planet.
0 Replies
okie
1
Reply
Fri 30 Jun, 2006 02:30 pm
Yep, piled higher and deeper. PhD's yes sir.
0 Replies
BernardR
1
Reply
Fri 30 Jun, 2006 02:39 pm
No one has yet brought forth evidence that the quote below is in error!
___________________________________________________________
But, anyway, Okie, here is the evidence to educate Mr. Blatham and Madame Plain Ol Me.
Newspapers choose their candidates
More newspapers weighed in Sunday with endorsements of President Bush or Sen. John Kerry.
Among those favoring Bush: the Chicago Tribune, Indianapolis Star, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Grand Rapids (Mich.) Press and Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch.
Those backing Kerry include The Boston Globe, Minneapolis Star Tribune, New York Times, Miami Herald, Kansas City (Mo.) Star, St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times,Akron (Ohio) Beacon Journal, Florida Today, Palm Beach (Fla.) Post and Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel.
There, Okie, is Plain Ol Me's phantom left wing press. The only problem is that she obviously has not read enough on politics to realize it!!!
THE BOSTON GLOBE
THE MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE
THE NEW YORK TIMES
THE MIAMI HERALD
THE KANSAS CITY STAR
SAINT PETERSBURG STAR
AKRON BEACON JOURNAL
PALM BEACH POST
FLORIDA TODAY
FORT LAUDERDALE SUN SENTINEL.
This proves that Plain Ol Me doesn't have a clue when it comes to the "left wing" Press.Okie, and I am sure that she, DESPITE MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE IN THE LAST TWENTY YEARS, SOME OF WHICH HAS BEEN REFERENCED BY YOU,OKIE, THAT REPORTERS ARE 80-90% LIBERAL LEANING, WOULD NOT BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE.
0 Replies
McGentrix
1
Reply
Fri 30 Jun, 2006 03:08 pm
I have to disagree BernardR. I believe that the majority of the people working in the press believe themselves to be fair minded and centrist when it comes to reporting the news. Commentaters and opinionists are paid to be slanted, but reporters and journalists can not afford to do so. They must report the news.
Newspapaers are owned by people and when the newspaper decides to back a candidate, it is the owners that do so, not reporters or the staff working for that newspaper. The same newspapers you cite, also reported on the Clinton scandals. None of them shied away from the stories nor did they try to ignore them. I am sure that during the Clinton years many decried the press as a tool of the conservatives.
For that reason alone I believe the press, in general, try to stay in the middle. Right now it is time to pound the conservatives becasue they are in office.
I am looking forward to the next Democratic president. I want to see what happens to the left when their darling Jon Stewart hits as hard on the Democrats as he has been on the Republicans. I believe he will do so because that is the nature of his business. To satirize the current government. I look forward to the cries of betrayal.
