Beck on the view....(sm)
Posted By: Just the big bad on 2009-05-21
In Reply to:
I love the part where they ask him if he checks his facts.....ROFL.
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/ladies-view-rake-glenn-beck-over-coa
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Beck was around, just not on Fox.
He had a radio show and had a show on Headline News in the evening. I don't have time to dig any up, but clips of his Headline News show would be interesting to compare to his recent Fox performances.
Glen Beck is going to go through
each earmark and I think, (sorry my blood is boiling), he's going to name each one who put that earmark in. If not, he is going to break it all down.
I hope you all get to see him again tonignt. He's also on early mornings if you don't see him at 7 EST, 9 EST.
normally i like glenn beck
but he is taking this waaaaay too defensively - i thought that rev lowery was hilarious and "groovy"! and there were plenty of baby boomers who shook their heads and smiled at him as well as obama because we had heard this before. i will be 44 this year, born in 1965, and my mother was born in the first year of the baby boom, 1946. when she and my father divorced in the early 1970s, she could not even rent an apartment because she was not married, nor get a loan because she was not married. we had to move back in with her parents in order to have a roof over our heads because, without a husband, she was a nonentity. but the times were a'changing. and as a young child, i heard often cool things like what lowery said...and bra burning to boot, not that my mother was hip enough to ever do that, but she worked two jobs and went to community college and eventually was able to build us a home (yes, through farmers home administration - thank god for them or we could never have broken through the discrimination against women at the time). through her brave choices (we could have lived with her parents forever - but she wanted her own life) and her choice of friends, black, yellow, red and white - at time when nice white girls who were prom queens and cheerleaders should not be seen with any of them, she showed me that the world is huge and that sometimes we have to laugh at our white selves :-)
I like Glenn Beck. He used to be on CNN
Probably because he was not really for Obama. Anyway, he brought up today that there are sections in the 677 some page stimulus that do not make sense at all. For example, the immigration section states something like: Article 45677 is to follow ACT 6544434 and then to follow 664444 and should be proceed with ACT 6654434 and so on. Glenn Beck said he had his top advisers and lawyer friends try to figure out what does it really mean and guess what? NO ONE KNOWS WHAT IT MEANS.
So there are sections in this stimulus package and we have no idea what it means and some of the parties want this passed quickly? Why? So it will try and fix the economy? The first bailout did nothing?
I like Glenn Beck. He used to be on CNN
Probably because he was not really for Obama. Anyway, he brought up today that there are sections in the 677 some page stimulus that do not make sense at all. For example, the immigration section states something like: Article 45677 is to follow ACT 6544434 and then to follow 664444 and should be proceed with ACT 6654434 and so on. Glenn Beck said he had his top advisers and lawyer friends try to figure out what does it really mean and guess what? NO ONE KNOWS WHAT IT MEANS.
So there are sections in this stimulus package and we have no idea what it means and some of the parties want this passed quickly? Why? So it will try and fix the economy? The first bailout did nothing?
So that is why we are to call our representatives to try and stop this stimulus package so we can basically digest what is really involved. After all, how much money is involved? A LOT! Talk about jumping the gun with a A LOT OF MONEY.
What is it with Glenn Beck?....(sm)
I think this link pretty much sums up Glenn Beck. Pay close attention to the "Beckisms." And you guys are clinging to his every word. 
http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Glenn_Beck
Well, if she was talking about Beck...(sm)
then she's still wrong. I do believe this is the guy who said he was tired of the whining of 911 victims and Katrina victims. Yeah...he has such a big heart.
Nope...that was Beck...(sm)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suc1ZpU2f2I
No she is not confused, Beck has taken up
btw, I don't mean to offend you with the Colbert clip. It just came to mind as an example when I read the thread.
I saw that yesterday and Beck actually
looked like the clown here. He was caught dead-handed with stretching the truth- he did go over to Fox, is that not right? Anyway, he told some big ones on his radio show, they had tape and Barbara and Whoopi both called him on the carpet. Barbara asked him did he not check his facts before throwing them out. He does work for Fox now, correct? I loved when Whoopi talked about that big pile.... Priceless.
Don' know how many of you like Glenn Beck but here's a link to see
About Wal-Mart.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/18216/
Yeah, and they finally got rid of Beck,
longer Lou lasts on CNN. He is the only one left there who reports with his eyes open.
Beck went to greener pastures.
nm
Love Glenn Beck
He has such a great way of pointing out the obvious. You do have to wonder why they all keep wanting to raise the taxes on the wealthy when that would include the majority of them - now we know! They don't pay!!!
Another Glenn Beck Video
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/20816/?ck=1
Wikipedia and Glen Beck bio
Well, we all know Wikipedia is not the best place to go for information. It's also one-sided. The below sentence really popped out at me at Beck's leaving:
"Though, as some have noted, this will leave a gaping hole in CNN's "department of embarrassing conservatives we keep around to help us appear unbiased," insiders expect that other irritable commentators will continue to step up in this area. "
Tell me, now, that CNN is not biased. Glenn Beck can be irritating at times, but he does have some good points.
Take the man whose stepdaughter disappeared 2 years ago in Mexico. He promised the father he and the network (CNN) would follow up on the story until they found out what happened to her. CNN refused to follow up, so that is one reason Beck left. Now he is on Fox and has talked to the father again and this time, he promised again that he and Fox will follow up on his story. He stated he now works for a network that cares for people.
As in every network story on any channel, you either believe everything you hear, or you watch, listen, learn, then take it for what it's worth. I chose, and it's still my right, to listen to all sides and make decisions based on all sides.
My point of the above post was to irony of cigarette taxes paying for children's healthcare. That was it. Federal studies show that taxing cigarettes does not fill the coffers. It has the opposite effect. As cigarette taxes go up, people quit smoking. So there is a deficit in taxes to pay for programs from the get go.
Glenn Beck mentioned this
last week on his show. He is having a special show in New York this Friday. He is wanting all the people who care for their country to come together. We are to look at his website and join in on "We Surround Them".
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/21018/?ck=1
Beck and O'Reilly and Hannity...
and for that matter Olberman and Matthews are not journalists, so-called or otherwise. They are commentators, which means they comment on the news, not report it. They share their opinions about news stories and have other people on their shows to discuss their opinions. It's not news, it's not reporting, it's simply opinion and people that watch it know that.
People that watch Fox are not uneducated or 'dittoheads' - it just so happens that our opinions and feelings about government and what's going on in this country and the world jive with most of the opinions on Fox. If you watch MSNBC or others it's because your opinion jives with what they're saying.
It doesn't give either group the right to say the other is brainwashed or pathetic, it just means we are of a different mindset and personally, I don't think that's a bad thing - if everyone was always of the same mindset, the Revolutionary War would have never been fought and we'd all be singing God Save the Queen.
You just have to remember to respect that people have different ideas and beliefs than you do - you don't have to agree, but at least have some respect.
You don't have to watch Glenn Beck...
to know his background. A simple Google search is all that's necessary. Glenn Beck is nothing more than another washed up disc jockey just like Rush Limbaugh.
I am glad Beck moved to Fox.
nm
Gee, BB, looks like you watch BECK faithfully
nm
Beck is great! Too bad he left CNN.
nm
Glenn Beck: Does anyone in Washington Pay Taxes?
He's really getting ticked off again.
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/20937/
Glenn Beck's problem?? He is a realist.
He is not hoodwinked by the powers that be.
Glenn Beck is making an impact
and they can't stand it.
Go Glenn!
Oh, you forgot to call Glenn Beck
fat, too. How ridiculous.
Glenn Beck is awesome and extreeeeemely intelligent.
Oh, Glenn Beck is intelligent. It's the people
nm
Right! Beck is a threat to the left so as usual,
nm
Glen Beck has a good program tonight.
He's on again at 9 p.m. EST. I'm watching it now and it's very interesting. Watch if you can.
Glenn Beck starts his new show tonight
I can't wait. I've missed him. Sometimes he makes sense, sometimes he doesn't, but he sure does tell it like it is.
"Thomas Paine" was on Glenn Beck tonight
He said so many people are sending tea bags but they aren't getting anywhere with it. Even though thousands have been sent in, they aren't getting to the people they are being sent to and instead, are being thrown out because "they might contain an illegal substance." So he is asking people to take the square tags at the end of the string from the tea bags and send those in instead of the whole teabag.
Glenn Beck is a swinging...um...oh yeah, pendulum.-nm
x
Glenn Beck:Obama's budget a loaded weapon aimed at you.
By Glenn Beck
Host, Glenn Beck
Hello America,
If you had any doubt that we were on The Road to Socialism, President Obamas just released budget should clear up that confusion. In fact, were so on The Road to Socialism that Barack Obamas budget reads like he went to MapQuest and printed out turn-by-turn directions to get us to socialism as quickly as possible. So far, President Obama is really making a big scary mess of things and this budget is a giant step in the wrong direction.
Believe meI understand that Im not the only one who feels this way. But there have been lots of times in my career when I felt like I was all alone in my thinking (and thats exactly why Im having my We Surround Them event on March 13thso you know that youre not alone click here for more details). So its always comforting for me when I hear others saying the same thing. Just this past weekend on FOX News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Arizonas Republican Senator Jon Kyl, How big a change in direction does the Obama budget represent in the relationship between government and the American people? Without missing a beat, Senator Kyl quoted The Wall Street Journal by saying, The budget represents a historical shift in the ideological direction of U.S. economic policy. No mincing words there. Then he reminded everyone that The Wall Street Journal also stated in an editorial that President Obama is attempting to expand the role of government to such a dominant position that its power can never be rolled back. A respected United States Senator and The Wall Street Journaloh, I like that company. (Too bad were all agreeing on how bad things are getting.)
Here are some of the budgets broad strokes:
* Obamas budget takes the size of our government to the largest its been since World War II.
* Its got a $1.4 trillion tax increase in it (and oh yeahwere in the middle of a recession).
* It doubles the debt in eight years.
* It never balances the budget and proposes that, for the next 10 years, our deficits are at a record high.
Hmmm. Usually I like to frame things in a good news / bad news context. That just wont work here, but I dont want to be a big downer. So let me put on a happy face and say that all the above was merely the regular, garden-variety bad news! Now here comes the super awful really bad news:
* Like a loaded weapon, this budget is aimed directly at you.
Is there a quicker way to end a honeymoon period for a new president than to propose a bunch of new taxes? Its going to take a lot of serenading from Beyonce to make people forget about having less moneyespecially in this economy. See, not only is there a proposed huge tax increase for the energy and manufacturing sectors (and those get passed on to everyone), but overall tax rates are going up. All this is a real gut shot for small business. What too many people fail to remember is that small business is big business in Americaover 70% of all American business is done by a small business. That means its likely that you either own or work for one, so President Obama wants more of your money (and Im guessing its not like you have a whole lot extra lying around these days.)
And then theres Obamas suggestion of a long-term investment in the economy. Thats a fancy way of saying increased spending. (You dont exactly need a decoder ring to figure that one out.) Another $30 billion for AIGafter they paid out six and seven figure bonuses and recorded the highest quarterly loss everover $60 billionin U.S. history? How deep can our pockets be expected to be? Rememberevery dollar the government invests in failing businesses is one of your dollars. If you had a stock broker who made the kind of crappy investments Washington has been making (and wants to make more of), youd have fired them long ago.
This really isnt that new a storyDemocrats have a reputation of taxing and spending because, wellthey always tax and spend. President Obama tries to soften his budgets blow by stating that the tax increases dont kick in until 2011. Um, Mr. President? Its not exactly like 2011 is off in the sci-fi future where well all have flying cars and live the life of George Jetson. Just like you need to plan ahead for re-election, small business owners need to do the same thingplan for their future. So congratulationsnow theyre doing that by bracing themselves for the tax avalanche coming their way in just a little over a year and a half from now. So instead of fueling the economy nowwhen we need itbusiness will tighten its belt and lower todays bottom line in preparation for tomorrows new taxes. That lowers tax receipts! Instead of getting better, things get worse. Even I get that, and Im the alcoholic rodeo clown.
Is it Election Day, 2012 yet?
My view.
I really don't think the slander/libel has anything to do with how the public is perceiving this. I do think it plays a part in how the women feel, as well it should. I have been saying all along that we have free will to read or not read what we wish. I agree with you totally on that. However, I feel the handling of this incident is definitely along political lines and I also feel that what Ward Churchill said was a lot worse. Ward says he does not regret what he said and he probably doesn't. But his career has certainly been affected. Thank you for addressing the issue and not making a personal attack. That's refreshing.
Sam we don't always have the same view but
you are welcome to post under mine at any time. We have debated a few issues without resorting to crude, name-calling and I have enjoyed that. I too am an independent, leaning more toward Dem., and I am glad you aren't going to lump all Dems together, because not all, and none I know, would do anything that you are seeing on TV or say even a tenth of the crap that is being said here.
So Sam, please debate away!
and what about JOY ON THE VIEW?
and Barbara is just about as bad.
My view............sm
based on my studies of Revelation over a period of time, are that there are 2 beasts referred to in Revelation 13. The first Beast who arises out of the sea (could be interpreted to mean a sea or mass of people or, in Obama's case, that hew was born on an island - Hawaii) and the Antichrist are one and the same. Why? Because the Beast will usher in a one-world religion that will demand he be worshiped, thereby making him the Antichrist. The 2nd beast will arise out of the earth. I believe this is likely the religious figure who will point to the first beast and build him up as one to be worshiped. Farrakhan has already said "the messiah has spoken" so could this be him? I don't know, but I do know that Obama has said that should the political winds blow in an ugly direction he would side with the Muslims and Farrakhan has very strong roots in the Islam faith.
All this remains to be seen, of course, and I'm certain that, if these conclusions are correct, it won't matter who we vote for because God will cause the events in Revelation to come to pass, whether now or at some point in the future.
God does not view us
as homosexual or heterosexual. He sees us as humans he created. We are not to be lukewarm or sit on the fence when it comes to sin. You need to either heat up the water or fall off the fence. Hopefully, it will be on the right side. ;-)
Another point of view...
Thinking About Iraq on King Day
By Star Parker
Monday, January 15, 2007
The characteristic of greatness - whether we are talking about a great man or great art - is that it transcends time and place. It dips into that which is universally and eternally true and applies those truths to a particular moment and a particular place.
Re-reading, after many reads, Dr. Martin Luther King's words of Aug. 28, 1963, the famous I Have a Dream speech, his greatness rings clearer than ever.
Because King did indeed touch the heavens on that day and pull down kernels of eternal truths about freedom and the condition of man, those words of 40-plus years ago have relevance to our struggles today. They can serve as guidance in these difficult times.
Am I saying that King's message from 1963 can guide us in today's conundrums _ about our embroilment in Iraq, about the Middle East, about America's role in the world? Yes, I am saying this.
The power of King's message, the unquestionable reason that the movement he led was successful, was his appeal to the truth of freedom and its universal applicability to all men.
By identifying and appealing to the freedom of man as a universal and eternal truth, and going on to make clear that this truth defined what this great country is about, then King's conclusion _ the intolerability of conditions that denied any American full participation in this freedom _ could not be denied.
Beyond this central message, King made other very important points in this speech.
One of key importance was that responsibility for solving a problem does not necessarily imply direct responsibility in having caused that problem.
Although the responsibility clearly was in the hands of those Americans with power, overwhelmingly white Americans, to fix the problems in the country that limited the availability of freedom to all, this did not mean that all those same Americans were racists or had caused the problem to begin with.
The responsibility for fixing these problems came, rather, with being the beneficiaries of a country whose destiny and identity was fundamentally linked with the enterprise of freedom.
In King's words, white Americans have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.
He appealed to blacks not to allow suffering to translate into bitterness nor into categorical hate of white Americans. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.
Instead, King exhorted black Americans to Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.
So Dr. King accomplished a lot of business that August day in 1963.
He recognized the universal truth of human liberty. He recognized our country as a unique vessel of that truth. He appealed to Americans with power to assume their responsibilities as the beneficiaries of liberty to make this a better and freer country. And he appealed to black Americans to assume a different kind of responsibility _ to not allow themselves to be destroyed by unearned suffering but to be redeemed by it.
The prophet is a lonely man because he brings a message that people do not want to hear.
Dr. King's activism was not welcomed by most whites and a good many blacks.
There is natural appeal in the inertia of the status quo. Change and assumption of new responsibilities and challenges are welcomed by few.
Turmoil tells us that something is wrong and we have no choice but to open our eyes and ears and assume the responsibilities that are cast upon us.
I am, of course, not a military tactician and am in no position to speculate about how best to use American troops to midwife a portion of the world that clearly needs help in becoming more modern, more civil and freer.
However, I can say, that I am in complete sympathy with our president who senses that America has a unique and special role to play in this world. We cannot shirk responsibilities that are clearly ours.
I cannot help but think that it is not an accident that the United States stands so alone, despite many other nations that claim to have similar commitments to and stakes in civility and liberty. The way they act makes clear that they don't.
The truths that Dr. King articulated in so crystal clear a way in 1963 continue to resound today. Freedom is what this country is about. We have no choice. It is our heritage. We thrive and prosper from it. And we cannot avoid the responsibilities that come with it in our engagement with the rest of the world.
I understand your view, but
Yes, you don't like government control at all. However, if insurance companies have full control -which they pretty much do - then they have the full power to deny or insure whomever they choose. What do you say then to the people who have cancer that have been denied coverage by the insurance company? I have posted a few times regarding this issue and I never get a response. I am really curious, for those who want government hands out of health care altogether, what do you say to the people that insurance has denied due to an illness? Too bad?
Just a little opposing view...
Journalistsf Tell Howard Kurtz Why Good News from Iraq Shouldnft Get Reported (updated w/video)
By Noel Sheppard | October 7, 2007 - 13:35 ET
As CNN's Howard Kurtz accurately pointed out on Sunday's "Reliable Sources," few media outlets seemed at all interested in giving much attention to the great news out of Iraq last week regarding September's sharp decline in casualties.
To Kurtz's obvious frustration, his guests - Robin Wright of the Washington Post and Barbara Starr of CNN - both supported the press burying this extremely positive announcement.
I kid you not.
*****Update: Wright responds to reader e-mail message at end of post.
After introducing the subject, Kurtz asked, "Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?"
This was Wright's amazing answer (video available here):
Story Continues Below Ad
Not necessarily. The fact is we're at the beginning of a trend -- and it's not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers. There are different kinds of deaths in Iraq.
There are combat deaths. There are sectarian deaths. And there are the deaths of criminal -- from criminal acts. There are also a lot of numbers that the U.S. frankly is not counting. For example, in southern Iraq, there is Shiite upon Shiite violence, which is not sectarian in the Shiite versus Sunni. And the U.S. also doesn't have much of a capability in the south.
So the numbers themselves are tricky.
Wow. Numbers shouldn't be reported because they're "tricky," "at the beginning of a trend," and there's "enormous dispute over how to count" them?
No such moral conundrum existed last month when media predicted a looming recession after the Labor Department announced a surprising decline in non-farm payrolls that ended up being revised up four weeks later to show an increase.
And, in the middle of a three and a half-year bull run in stocks, such "journalists" have no quandary predicting a bear market every time the Dow Jones Industrial Average falls a few hundred points.
Yet, when good news regarding military casualties comes from the Defense Department, these same people show uncharacteristic restraint in not wanting to report what could end up being an a anomaly.
Isn't that special?
Alas, not seeing the stupidity in this position, Starr, with a straight-face nonetheless, agreed with Wright:
But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.
Hmmm. So, I guess a "very positive step on that potential road to progress" isn't newsworthy, huh Barbara? Even Kurtz recognized the hypocrisy here, which led to the following:
KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.
STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress?
We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.
Hmmm. So, a shocking increase in deaths would have "certainly" been newsworthy. However, for a decrease to be reported, skeptical journalists have to be more convinced that it's a lasting improvement.
Sadly, this is what makes today's reporters more like sports fans than real journalists.
After all, it shouldn't be their position to decide when a comeback, rally, or winning streak is real enough for them to jump on the bandwagon and get excited about. News - be it good or bad - is to be reported.
That's their job.
And when folks like this make dissemination decisions to not share information on something as important as American casualties of war due to their own personal skepticism, they have indeed abdicated their solemn responsibility to the public whose interest they regularly claim to serve.
What follows is a partial transcript of this segment.
HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: The news from Iraq has been consistently depressing for several years now, a continuous tableau of death and destruction. But when the administration released more positive casualty figures this week, the media paid little attention. A couple of sentences on the "CBS EVENING NEWS" and NBC "NIGHTLY NEWS," The New York Times ran it on page 10, The Washington Post," page 14, USA Today page 16. The L.A. Times, a couple of paragraphs at the bottom of a page 4 story.
One exception was Charlie Gibson, who made it the lead story on ABC's "WORLD NEWS."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLES GIBSON, ABC ANCHOR: The U.S. military reports the fourth straight month of decline in troop deaths, 66 American troops died in September, each a terrible tragedy for a family, but the number far less than those who died in August. And the Iraqi government says civilian deaths across Iraq fell by half last month.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KURTZ: Joining us now to put this into perspective, Robin Wright, who covers national security for The Washington Post. And CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr.
Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?
ROBIN WRIGHT, THE WASHINGTON POST: Not necessarily. The fact is we're at the beginning of a trend -- and it's not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers. There are different kinds of deaths in Iraq.
There are combat deaths. There are sectarian deaths. And there are the deaths of criminal -- from criminal acts. There are also a lot of numbers that the U.S. frankly is not counting. For example, in southern Iraq, there is Shiite upon Shiite violence, which is not sectarian in the Shiite versus Sunni. And the U.S. also doesn't have much of a capability in the south.
So the numbers themselves are tricky. Long-term, General Odierno, who was in town this week, said he is looking for irreversible momentum, and that, after two months, has not yet been reached.
KURTZ: Barbara Starr, CNN did mostly quick reads by anchors of these numbers. There was a taped report on "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT." Do you think this story deserved more attention? We don't know whether it is a trend or not but those are intriguing numbers.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.
KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.
STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress?
We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.
*****Update: Susan Duclos of Wake up America sent an e-mail message to Robin Wright concerning this matter. Here was Wright's response:
Ms. Duclos -
Thanks for your comments. The point I was trying to make on CNN is that two months do not make a permanent trend. As Gen. Odierno said last week, when he came to the Post, the numbers have been good the last couple of months but the US military has not yet reached the point of "irreversible momentum." When they do, it will certainly mean a different kind of reporting about the war in general. Unfortunately, all it will take is one or two really bad incidents and the numbers will start going up again. The numbers aren't the whole story either. The progress in Anbar has been widely covered in the US media -- and that in many ways tells us far more about both the war and the future than the death tolls.
I also think we're all a little nervous about declaring victories before we're fully confident that they represent a long-term and enduring trend and are not just a favorable blip on the screen.
With regards,
Robin Wright
Diplomatic Correspondent
The Washington Post
Telephone: 202 334-7443
Email: wrightr@washpost.com
Fax: 202 496-3883
Looks like anything good is being censored on this side by most of the major outlets here. Not surprising.
my view on experience is...
I don't think experience is that big of an issue - nobody has "experience" at being the President of the United States until they get elected - and I don't think that the experience that Hillary claims is any real experience anyway.
I am excited at the prospect of having somebody in office who has no "experience" - maybe they will really want to "change" the way the "experienced" people have been doing things!
I appreciate your point of view, Just Me....
and I will be the first to admit, as I admitted right up front to GT/GW/BW/FPJ who knows what else, she pushed my buttons and took great joy in doing so. She attributed things to me I never said, condemned an entire political party en masse and had the nerve to call me a bigot and that was the nicest thing she called me. If you followed the posts you know that most of the name calling from my end was just repeating back to her what I had been called. The same kinds of exchanges happen on political talk shows every night. Have you ever watched Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann?
Her parting shot...Time to take out the trash.
In deference to your request, I will say this...I believe that GW believes with every fiber of her being that she is right and is passionate about her beliefs, and I certainly understand that. I think she is probably a nice person to those who share her views, loves her family like the rest of us and would like to fix all the perceived injustices in the world, just like the rest of us would. But you can't move forward if you don't let go of the hate and the blame game. There is plenty of blame to go around, on both sides of the aisle. No law, no program, no nothing can be passed in this country without both Republicans and Democrats voting for it, fact. We can't blame it all on the left and we can't blame it all on the right or the middle or whoever. In fact, we shouldn't be blaming at all, just trying to fix. But...as I am sure you well know, Just Me...the radical side of BOTH parties don't see the middle road.
The irony of the whole thing is that I am not a registered Republican...registered Independent. Only register Republican in primary years because I can't vote if I don't register Republican or Democrat...that's the law. Yet I was thrown right in and condemned right along with every other "pub."
Just Me, sometimes you just have to stand for what you believe, and not let a bully pigeon hole you and call you things you are not. And sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. That is just a part of life. I apologize if you were offended by witnessing it. I truly do. I apologize to anyone who was.
Just to clarify: I don't hate immigrants or immigration. That is how this country was born. Save Native Americans, we ALL descend from immigrants. I just feel immigration should be legal, and that immigrants should become tax-paying citizens before they get the benefits of citizenship. That's it. Real simple. And not bigoted.
And for the record, I don't hate all Democrats or blame them for all the ills in the world. Like I said...plenty of blame to go around on both sides. My parents were Democrats (old school Democrats). There have been Democrats I greatly admired...John Kennedy...Zell Miller. Great Americans in my opinion.
Afraid to view it are you?
And it is the least of my worries what you consider trash...:)
By all means....don't view it. You might actually have to really know...
what you support. Can't have that, can you?
Perhaps not everyone shares your view....as to the
downward course of the nation. Just like you did not allow us to rain on your parade...you ain't gonna rain on this one. So happpeeee this morning, not even you can dampen it, try though you will. :) You have a great day, valuevoter! It is a GOOD day!!
Some may view that differently.......
When I was little and my grandfather said pull yourself up by your bootstraps and move on, he simply meant do the best you can, lean on God and do not expect yourself to be able to handle EVERYTHING yourself. Somehow politics gets pulled into the meaning, when it shouldn't really. It used to be a phrase thrown out there to encourage others to get up and on the saddle again, so to speak, and just get moving without waiting for everyone else to do it for you. Do the best you can in whatever you do.
I agree with this view.
The Christian Right threw fits when Ridge was being considered. Leiberman was too much of a party turncoat to suit them and way to left of party center. It does not really matter where the idea of submitting to the temptation to pander to the Right AND Hillary supporters/women voters came from. JM or advisors, the pick would suggest that whoever made this decision was putting winning first and the welfare of the country second. BTW, presidents are held responsible for the decisions they make, no matter how many advisors had input.
My view as an independent.
I don't see Michele as hard, negative or loud. I see her as passionate and a go-getter. I have seen her speak at different things and have always enjoyed her.
Cindy I see as not weak, but just more quiet. I wouldn't say she was weak though.
Maybe this has something to do with their age differences, different generations?
My point of view
I really don't care if a president cheats on his or HER spouse under most circumstances. But when his little playmate testifies he was being "serviced" by her with talking on the phone with important people, that bothers me. She very well could have heard confidential things she shouldn't have. When you are in the Oval Office you are on the clock and should act like it.
need to view the big picture
Gut reaction is to say let the fail. I was not in favor of the bailout as proposed; however, common sense tells me that there has to be some plan. It isn't a question of stocks falling; it is a question of the economic structure of the US failing completely. I do want to save their "greedy banker butts" (to use your words) but you need to think of the bigger picture. You talk about a drop in stock, retirement, possible lower value of your home and no loan for college. How about drop in stock and savings and checking and everything to zero. How about losing your home, not having a job, not being able to afford food or clothing? Do you understand the consequence of no fix to this problem goes way beyond "bailing out their greedy banker butts." It is just not wall street here, it is the entire American economy.
|
