Please note sources within this article...
Posted By: Just the big bad on 2008-11-07
In Reply to: To bring in an oil well........ sm - m
http://ourfuture.org/makingsense/factsheet/oil-drilling
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
On a serious note...
....I thank you for your response. While I agree boxes probably arent' the best idea sometimes they make complicated ideologies a little simpler to understand, I guess.
Actually I would be very interested in learning all the posters on these boards beliefs/ideologies/hopes for the future. I think we could do this without undermining each other or bashing. Perhaps I'll post it at the top of the board some time as a new topic.
and on that note...
Who gained the most benefit from keeping it a secret, and/or keeping the rumor afloat that he is still out there somewhere?
Note to sam
Sam, just wondering if when you post a legitimate question on the board could you please change your name. It seems like anything you ask anymore people are bashing you. You put up some very good questions (sorry can't answer this one as I'm not knowlegable enough to know what the outcome would be -it's all too confusing), but it seems as though people are going to attack you for anything. Now if there is an argument you want to make that's one thing, but its not right that you put up a question and people are attacking you for that. - just a suggestion.
One more note
Was curious to see what people would say to my post. I expected the O supporters to bash me for my opinion. That's the way this board is run, but I was curious so came back. For all of you thinking this is one sided - I voted for Obama! I supported Obama! I donated money to his campaign. I fought tooth and nail on this board to defend Obama. I got into some rough ones with some of the republicans on this board. But as time has gone on I have researched and learned more about Obama and I do not like what I am finding out. I come to this board to hopefully get some insightful information and it IS mostly the democrats bashing and attacking posters who are for McCain. I would say 95% dems bashing republicans and 5% republicans defending themselves by coming back at the posters who originally bashed them. Facts are facts and its in black and white on this board. And they bash Palin without cause. I just say it like it is (sorry you don't like to admit it). Like the poster below said - guess only half the pixels on your monitor work.
If you had any type of open mind you would read through every single post and you would see the Obama supporters bashing the McCain supporters more, calling them every name in the book while in the same breath saying its all them against you (and the posts below are proof of that). The posts below show you don't have open minds, you don't search out facts. You are blindly led around like a bunch of sheep.
God help us if Obama gets in there. I for one don't want to live my life with the likes of Farrahan, Wright, Resko, and Ayers (to name a few) dictating how we should be living. Farrakan's the creepiest of all, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why you want to live like that.
Please note....(sm)
I think Phelps and his daughter were banned back in Feb.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7898972.stm
There are also a number of people on the list whose names have not been published. I would love to see the entire list.
Note, what I said was
You prepare for what an opponent might do, not what he appears to be doing at the moment. Situations change in an instant, stuff happens, appearances may be misleading. You don't encumber both hands when you could be attacked, especially if there's more than one. Doesn't mean attack them first, but you stay ready for the possibility that they might attack you. Military training and just plain common sense.
Please note....(sm)
We are talking about Obama here, not Bush the war monger.
"There will always be a war that he needs them for and if there isn't one he will create one."
You do realize that Obama was one of the few senators who voted completely against the Iraq war? What makes you think he wants to stay in a war when all he has done is talk about how we need to get out of it? That is just completely irrational.
"Why do you say the GOP is not funding the troops."
Ummm....because the vast majority of pubs in the house just voted against a funding bill?
Each brown place in the link takes you to a different article that supports this article...nm
x
How many did it take to write this note?
Just wondering.
Note to gt......off topic
It's me - the one who's been posting under all the gt alias joke monikers. I just had to blow off steam after the conservative board debacle last night. Don't know why I get involved in it. My fall equinox resolution will be to inform, not condemn.
Thanks for tolerating my not-that-funny-ha-ha little joke.
note: this was in no way gay-bashing, as i am gay too,
but i just had to laugh at the mental image of a pitbull with lipstick, trying its best not to look like a 'klondyke'.
On a side note..
Where in the Mojave desert did you live? I grew up in a tiny town called Inyokern and went to high school in Lone Pine.
just a note from factcheck.org
A second false quote has Obama saying he would "stand with the Muslims," words that don't appear in his book. What he actually said is that he would stand with American immigrants from Pakistan or Arab countries should they be faced with something like the forced detention of Japanese-American families in World War II:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html
On a lighter note.....sm
Stuff I didn't know about.......
Meet Obama's bodyman: The White House 'Chief of Stuff' who caters to the President's every whim
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1127223/Meet-Obamas-bodyman-The-White-House-Chief-Stuff-caters-Presidents-whim.html
Agree and just want to add to your note that
that Bush WOULD NOT meet with those of the fallen. He out-and-out dissed them. So, even though none of this mess is Obama's making, he met with those who mourn and actually listened to their views. He did so much more in that 45 minutes than Bush ever did.
Note to mythbuster...(sm)
Off our meds, are we? - Mythbuster (Views: 33, 2009-03-10)
You might want to clean up your own backyard before you start on someone else's.
I think the thing to note here...(sm)
is not so much that he had an affair. People do that all the time. I personally think it's nobody's business, and that's how I felt about Clinton as well. However, what we have here is a guy who has been preaching "family values" as a campaign slogan for how many years? and then this comes out. It's the blatant hipocrisy that I can't stand.
Also, this guy was supposedly a good candidate for VP next time around. If something like this had been found out about Biden, the rght would have had a field day with it, just like they did with Clinton.
More on that note....France, that non...
judgmental open-minded country....their Prez says France cannot accept Burqas...this is just part of it....PARIS — President Nicolas Sarkozy said the Muslim burqa would not be welcome in France, calling the full-body religious gown a sign of the "debasement" of women.
In the first presidential address to parliament in 136 years, Sarkozy faced critics who fear the burqa issue could stigmatize France's Muslims and said he supported banning the garment from being worn in public.
"In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity," Sarkozy said to extended applause at the Chateau of Versailles, southwest of Paris.
"The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement — I want to say it solemnly," he said. "It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic."
Hmmmm. Oh my. Muslims world wide (not to mention the 5 million that live in France) are going to LOVE that.
And people say WE aren't open-minded? LOL. Where is the French version of the ACLU?? Hey...they can borrow ours. HEY, Sarkozy...take THEM ALL. :-) lol
Please note that American Woman is not AG
Thanks Brunson for you objective views....it is refreshing. You know how to respectfully post and carry on an adult conversation.
The only reason I am posting here is to state this even though it's blatantly obvious American Woman is not me.
I read here, but I don't post here. I might post my responses to posts here on the C board....but other than to clarify like I'm doing now I don't post here....I made a mistake on Friday posting here, but I got my boards mixed up. Have a great day!
Note to uptight liberals
It was s-a-r-c-a-s-m. Humor is lost on you all...
OK, on that same note you answered your own question..sm
You believe abortion is immoral and that it should be illegal. I think the same thing about this war. Yeah congress passed it, so for all intents and purposes on paper it is legal, but it should be illegal to preempt war against a dictator and his followers (because technically we are not at war against Iraq) that is not a eminent threat to us.
Here's a funny for you. Note the date.
James I. Blakslee
"Pledged to vote for Woodrow Wilson and support the reorganization of the Democratic Party"
"Democrats in every county in Pennsylvania have been betrayed times without number and to-day trickery and deception walk hand in hand to again mislead them"
"Canidates have been found, who, for a price, are willing to represent the twin-machine traitors."
"Every alert, active Democrat will easily detect the tricksters, and on Saturday, April 13th, 1912, between the hours of 2 PM and 8 PM, will register his vote for the Purification of this Party."
I get a kick out of that.
A note about your socialism comment sm
We do not have socialism except for that big bank bailout that was under Bush's leadership, (lack of leadership). All your sorry arguments of months ago are now moot points. Stop being a sore loser. Nobody cares about the birth certificate, about Ayers, about Rev Wright, about fake socialism, about your phoney crooked republican manipulations. Suck it up and be a real American and follow the new president.
And as a side note...anyone who posts here has a right to speak...
no matter how bad that chaps you. And the fact that it does chap you so much...is definitely food for thought.
On the whole religion note, I just read yesterday
about how McCain people are calling Jewish neighborhoods and making false statements about Obama. They start out saying they are polling or something, and then it gets into their religion - making false statements about Obama. The people that were called from McCain's people were very upset about this, that they would call and say these things. One woman even asked a question about it and the person on the other end of the phone said they wouldn't qualify for the poll if they weren't Jewish or they wouldn't have been called if they didn't live in a traditionally Jewish neighborhood. I think that is disgusting.
It has NOT been proven his certificate is authentic - see note
What he has provide is a computer generated copy - not the original type written certificate typed in a typewriter that was used in 1961 (there were no computers back then), and it is NOT authentic. What part of that don't you understand. The people who said it was authentic is the Annenberg foundation who is connected with Ayers and ACORN - hence, they are tied in and supporting Obama.
This has not been verified otherwise the supreme court would not be issuing an order that it be presented. There is something fishy about the whole issue especially when Obama legally had the records sealed so nobody could see the certificate.
The only ones who will not see this is the Obamabots. Open your eyes - you know, if it's found that he is inelligible to be President then Biden will become President (which is who I wanted for President in the first place and we'll see who he picks as VP).
The issue needs to be resolved and at least now we have a supreme court justice wanting to see the original type written certificate and not a computer generated certificate created by a group who is supporting Obama.
sources
I got it from blogsforjohnmccain.com. Not sure where you get your info. In fact, I don't even know how I got that story, as I'd never been to this site. Here's an interesting one, too: informationvault.com. The resources are endless. It amazes me that the so-called news stations are in business with their pathetic, identical news coverage. Judge for yourself. They always have exactly the same stuff, and the exact, same attitude.
As for FNC, that's why it constantly leaves all the rest in the dust. While I like Alan Colmes okay as a lib, his remark about Sarah was what I thought to be out of character for him after watching Hannity & Colmes all these years. I'll be writing Roger Ailes/FNC to remind them that FNC is way above those tacky networks, and that this won't be tolerated.
Susan Estrich, another FNC lib I like, has gone after the libs for what they've done to Palin. She's a fair lib. She's wrong on politics, but behaves with class while debating.
your sources
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/06/mccain-does-nothing-as-cr_n_132366.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-feldman/is-palin-trying-to-incite_b_132534.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVFWahLTdUo
Need more?
There are other sources...........sm
that are equally as reliable and accurate. All news web sites are going to put their own spin on the news. Factcheck, regardless of what news media uses it, I don't feel is reliable. They are said to have actually touched and examined Obama's birth certificate yet state they can't get their hands on the vault copy. If Obama wanted to produce it, he could. I wouldn't doubt that it may be proven at some point in time that the document that Factcheck holds is a forgery produced by one of his own workers who gained access to the necessary insturments to produce it. Corruption exists at every level of government and money is a powerful motivator. Just as the LA Times what they are doing with their newly acquired 3 million dollars.
It's in other sources too -
I do read and listen to more than just liberal articles and stations.
After looking at other sources...(sm)
...here's my opinion:
1. WBC is a pathetic fringe group that sometimes does nothing more than try our commitment to the principle of free speech (which is always most challenged when people say things we abhore), but sometimes the group steps over the line into illegal activity.
2. When they have stepped over the line, they have been charged and/or sued. This is where such matters belong.
3. Michael Moore knows how to shoot fish in a barrel and make some believe he's provided some important insight. Big whoop. I guess we can expect a piece on the churches that practice snake-handling to be next. My question is: Where's his piece on the other groups that have picketed the funerals of fallen soldiers in order to desecrate their memory?
I'm not holding my breath.
please note...the title line of the previous post were....
sim's words, not mine. Refer to her/his post.
Please note the words "Glenn and McCain's involvement...
was minimal."
Abscam and the Keating Five
In 1978, the Federal Bureau of Investigation embarked on a sting operation, labeled Abscam, in which agents posed as Middle Eastern businessmen offering bribes to senators and congressmen. The FBI targeted 31 government officials in total during the operation, including state officials in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Six congressmen, Democrats John Jenrette of South Carolina, Raymond Lederer of Pennsylvania, Michael Myers of Pennsylvania, John Murphy of New York and Frank Thompson of New Jersey, and Republican Richard Kelly of Florida, and one senator, Democrat Harrison Williams of New Jersey, were convicted of bribery and conspiracy charges in 1981.
Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania also was indicted but not prosecuted because he gave evidence against Murphy and Thompson. Only one lawmaker, Republican Sen. Larry Pressler of South Dakota, refused to take the bribe, saying at the time, "Wait a minute, what you are suggesting may be illegal."
Kelly initially had the conviction overturned when a judge ruled the sting amounted to illegal entrapment, but in 1984, a higher court sentenced Kelly to 13 months in prison. Kelly was famously caught on videotape packing his pockets with $25,000 in cash, asking the undercover agents, "Does it show?"
But as opposed to Abscam tarnishing Congress, it was the FBI that dealt with much of the long-term scrutiny as investigations into their probe brought up the entrapment issue. After Abscam, there have been no published accounts of efforts to catch lawmakers in the act, rather the focus became investigating wrongdoing after the act.
The Keating Five scandal from 1989 implicated five senators in another corruption probe. Democrats Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Donald Riegle of Michigan, John Glenn of Ohio and Alan Cranston of California, and Republican John McCain of Arizona, were accused of strong-arming federal officials to back off their investigation of Charles Keating, former chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan association. In exchange, the senators reportedly received close to $1.3 million in campaign contributions.
The Senate Ethics Committee concluded that Glenn and McCain's involvement in the scheme was minimal and dropped the charges against them. In August 1991, the committee ruled that the other three senators had acted improperly in interfering with the Federal Home Loan Banking Board's investigation.
DeConcini and Riegle did not run for re-election in 1994 and were succeeded by Republican Sens. John Kyl and Spencer Abraham.
Looks to me like the Democrats were on the majority wrong end of both of these scandals.
On a lighter note, a bipartisan funny card (sm)
http://www.americangreetings.com/ecards/view.pd?i=474735065&m=2086&rr=y&source=ag999
While the "poo" is flying, let's note I did not make my post about whether...sm
I agreed with the stimulus package, because if you read further back on this board, I have been stating my opposition clearly for weeks, and just what I have problems with! This post was about a thinly-veiled, very inflammatory, crude, demeaning, hurtful "comic," and not just for the President, many African-Americans were hurt by this, and wrong is wrong, I am keeping my post specifically to this one point, I am sick of "pubs" or anyone else clouding issues by dragging other irrelevant issues in. The Post really demeaned themselves by publishing this, and they know it!!
You fail to note that the Army Corp of Engineers....
is a federal entity and it was THEIR job to fix the levies, too bad W cut all the funding so he could play Monopoly in Iraq.
You may want to check your sources.
Actually this may be more accurate:
Katrina Victims Welcomed in Massachusetts
Massachusetts to take about 2,500 refugees from hurricane” – The Associated Press
“Massachusetts will take in about 2,500 Hurricane Katrina refugees in coming days, sheltering them on Cape Cod for up to two months and likely resettling some permanently in the Bay State, Gov. Mitt Romney said Sunday.
Romney said federal emergency officials told him Sunday to prepare for the evacuees, who will arrive in two to three days, and will be temporarily housed at Camp Edwards on Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod.
Otis has many amenities to accommodate the large numbers, including beds, a school, medical facilities, a gymnasium and a movie theater, he said.”
Check your sources
Get your facts straight. Obama was sworn in using a bible. It was another congressman, Keith Ellison, who was sworn in using the Koran.
Uh...you might want to check your sources on that one.
Can't get around to the rest of the post this p.m., 'cause it took a little time to get the response together for the first sentence:
http://judiciary.house.gov/news/071708.html:
On July 17, 2008, John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, announced the committee would be holding a hearing on the Imperial Presidency of George Walker Bush and possible legal responses. The hearing convened on July 25, 2008.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9689
Here's some video (July 25, 2008 through August 14, 2008). As you can see, it is ongoing. I included the link above because that is the day Vicent Bugliosi was there.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article4333.html:
May not have heard about this on your mainstream media outlets because there has been a media blackout. Of course, for those out there who find this in the least bit interesting, try some alternative media sources. Pacifica Foundation (Pacifica.org) publicly funded, listener sponsored radio outlets (not NPR) would be a good place to start. Their most popular show, Democracy Now!, has put out some fairly interesting stuff on this hearing and it surrounding issues. Here are a few links.:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/14/after_ron_suskind_reveals_bush_admin
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/13/the_way_of_the_world_ron
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/28/house_judiciary_committee_hold_historic_hearings
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/17/former_senator_mike_gravel_calls_for
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/13/despite_opposition_from_his_own_party
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/13/citing_iraq_war_renowned_attorney_vincent
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/22/pentagons_pundits_a_look_at_the
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/20/to_impeach_or_not_to_impeach
The ones from 06/13, 06/17 and 07/28 have more on Bugliosi.
The grounds for impeachment are WAY too long to get into here, but you could always Google "Article of Impeachment GW Bush 2008" for the details.
So far, the committee has heard from these guys:
Robert Wexler, D-Rep Florida
Dennis Kucinich D-Rep Ohio
Sheila Jackson-Lee D-Rep Texas
Tim Johnson D-Rep S. Dakota
Tammy Baldwin D-Rep Wisconsin
Keith Ellison D-Rep
Maurice Hinchey D-Rep NY
Elizabeth Holtzman D-Rep NY
Rocky Anderson former mayor of Salt Lake City
Eliott Adams, President of Board Veterans for Peace
Bob Barr, former R-Rep from Georgia
So much for lack of interest in impeachment hearings. Who knows where this will all end up, but Bugliosi reminds us that there is no statue of limitations on murder. Tune it out if you like...or not.
Uh, you might want to check your sources ....
there are two sides to every story:
They lined up by the hundreds to be a witness to history at the Judiciary Committee's unofficial impeachment hearings of George W. Bush today.
It wasn't called that of course. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-S.F.) had balked at a real impeachment hearing. Something about fearing a voter backlash from the public, already in a bad mood about Congress' inaction on core issues.
But today's hearing by the House Judiciary Committee -- billed as an inquiry to the Bush administration's use of executive power -- was ripe with opportunity for those who want to evict the president from office.
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) accused the administration of diminishing legislative power "beyond recognition" and cited "a litany of wrongful actions," accusing the White House of "a dangerous consolidation of power."
Rep. Maurice "Mo" Hinchey (D-N.Y.) said of the White House, "I think this is the most impeachable administration in the history of our country."
But Republicans (except for one, Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, an outspoken Bush foe) defended the White House.
Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the committee, belittled Democrats' attempts to turn the proceedings into an impeachment forum. If last month's hearing with former White House spokesman Scott McClellan amounted to a "Book of the Month Club," he said, today's is "an anger management class. Nothing is going to come out of this hearing on impeachment."
And Rep. Steve King of Iowa argued that after 45 hearings -- with such witnesses as Vice President Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, McClellan and former Ambassador Joe Wilson -- there was no evidence that the Bush administration had committed any high crimes and misdeameanors. King also claimed that a recently declassified CIA document proves the president's controversial 16 words in his 2003 State of the Union address about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium from Niger are corroborated by Wilson's report.
Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) reminded them both that "to the regret of many, this is not an impeachment hearing."
I think the words "this is not an impeachment hearing"
tell the tale. More like an anger management class, sounds like. I wuld also be interested in the recently declassified document about the Niger incident.
They wouldn't convict a President that we all know FOR SURE committed felony perjury...don't think anyone would vote to convict even if he was impeached...and the Democrats would be basically saying "yeah, we were stupid, we believed every word he said" if they do impeach him. The same Democrats who call him ignorant, an imbecile, stupid, etc.; they are going to go on record saying this guy who is so dumb he can't tie his own shoes fooled all of us, the American people, and the whole world? And all the stuff left over from the Clinton Admin on Iraq would all come out too. Pandora's box big time. In an election year? Don't hold your breath...lol.
Progressive new sources
On reviewing the posts below, I see someone has supplied you with a number of conservative sources to investigate. For the sake of balance, here is a list I prepared a few days back of progressive sources that will also give some insight into the Obama camp and their beliefs. You could Google around with this list, but don't be overwhelmed. In my personal opinion, the Democracy Now! Amy Goodman is a nice all-round overview of all the others. Here's that link and the list.
http://www.democracynow.org/
Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman
Ariana Huffington.
Bill Mahar.
Bill Moyers.
Indymedia.
Independent Press Association (IPA)
Chris Matthews
Keith Olberman
Richard Dreyfuss
Helen Thomas
Jim Hightower
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)
Naomi Klein
Al-Jazeera English
Jeremy Scahill
Robert Scheer
Nir Rosen
Allan Nairn
James Steele
John Ghazvinian
Seymour Hersh
Scotter Ritter
The Nation
Rolling Stone
Mother Jones
The American Prospect
Greg Palast
Let's put some lipstick on sources, please...
where did these "facts" come from?
Exactly, and the sources you mention actually...
back up their facts that are easily checked, not just commentary or their personal spin on things. THAT is what people need to look at. Even if they are watching those other things, when they hear something, don't take it at face value. Research it, look for facts, not statements. Trust YOURSELF.
Never heard of this - you have sources?
/
The sources as you should be reminded come from
You could get smart and educate yourself. You can look all of this up; you will find it to be fact. The paper trail is there. Heck, even Obama's own "slip ups" came out of his own mouth but I suppose you're gonna tell me they had a double in there and he didn't say anything that should be a disturbing revelation to you.
Credible sources
I'm sorry I go back to this subject and it might have been discussed but can someone tell me the following. I am really curious because I keep seeing posts with people cutting down others and making fun of them and telling them the sources are not credible, but they will post their own sources. So...
What makes a credible source?
Why is MSNBC/CNN more credible than Fox News?
Why is Factcheck (supporters of Obama) more credible than an independent fact checking site?
Why is Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and others liberal talk shows more credible than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or other conservative rado shows? (although I can't stand Rush and that little pipsqueek leprechaun Hannity), just wondering why the liberal radio shows are more credible than the conservative.
Why are independently written articles by people who some of them do not reside in the US but watch the political and economic scene here in the US, not credible (even though they are giving their opinions of what they see happening), but if there is a good article written about the liberal politicians those articles are credible.
Why is World Net Daily not credible but The Progressive and The New Yorker are?
Why are people made fun of and not called credible because they post articles about UFO's, yet our own Astronauts James Lovell, Frank Borman, and Buzz Aldrin actually did see UFOs when they were in space.
Why will people scream and shout and get so totally upset because Bush has not been impeached (which he should be), but when the people who had the authority to impeach him (Pelosi, Reid and others) never pushed for impeachment the same people screaming for impeachment keep silent.
Okay, my post originally started out to be about why some articles/sources are credible while others are not, but I am curious about the last paragraph and would like to hear people's viewpoints on all the issues.
So, just curious about this.
Credible sources
I'm sorry I go back to this subject and it might have been discussed but can someone tell me the following. I am really curious because I keep seeing posts with people cutting down others and making fun of them and telling them the sources are not credible, but they will post their own sources. So...
What makes a credible source?
Why is MSNBC/CNN more credible than Fox News?
Why is Factcheck (supporters of Obama) more credible than an independent fact checking site?
Why is Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and others liberal talk shows more credible than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or other conservative rado shows? (although I can't stand Rush and that little pipsqueek leprechaun Hannity), just wondering why the liberal radio shows are more credible than the conservative.
Why are independently written articles by people who some of them do not reside in the US but watch the political and economic scene here in the US, not credible (even though they are giving their opinions of what they see happening), but if there is a good article written about the liberal politicians those articles are credible.
Why is World Net Daily not credible but The Progressive and The New Yorker are?
Why are people made fun of and not called credible because they post articles about UFO's, yet our own Astronauts James Lovell, Frank Borman, and Buzz Aldrin actually did see UFOs when they were in space.
Why will people scream and shout and get so totally upset because Bush has not been impeached (which he should be), but when the people who had the authority to impeach him (Pelosi, Reid and others) never pushed for impeachment the same people screaming for impeachment keep silent.
Okay, my post originally started out to be about why some articles/sources are credible while others are not, but I am curious about the last paragraph and would like to hear people's viewpoints on all the issues.
So, just curious about this.
About Credible Sources
Fox News presents itself as fair and balanced news reporting, when it's clearly not. Olbermann's show and Maddow's show are opinion and present themselves as such. Just check who's on the talking heads Sunday shows on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Conservative pundits still far outnumber liberal pundits on all of them. Again, you have to separate opinion programming from actual news reporting on all networks.
As for Rense, et al, it speaks for itself and needs no explanation. Lovell, Borman, and Aldrin saw things outside of their experience while in space. That's a far cry from what Rense believes in. World Net Daily, NewsMax, and others clearly have an agenda and make no effort to hide it. Fair enough. But how credible are THEIR sources? What are their sources' agendas?
Here's an intersting tidbit for those who believe in a "liberal media." Here are some former high-level Bush administration officials who've gone on to prominent positions in the so-called liberal media:
* Michael Gerson was picked up as a columnist for the Washington Post.
* Sara Taylor, who was integrally involved in the U.S. Attorney Purge scandal and the politicization of federal agencies, became a pundit for MSNBC.
* Karl Rove became a Fox News "analyst," a columnist for Newsweek, and a columnist for the Wall Street Journal.
* Tony Snow went from the White House briefing room to a gig on CNN.
* Frances Townsend also went from the White House to CNN.
* Nicole Wallace went from Rove's office to CBS News before she left to work on McCain's campaign.
* Dan Bartlett is an "analyst" for CBS News.
I could site sources that say there were...
WMDs in Iraq, but would only be dismissed because they did not come from liberal media. Propaganda works both ways. At any rate, I am finished arguing with you people. I suggest we agree to disagree.
To ok, sorry, no link, too many sources
I believe we would be better off in the long run not to let government tinker around in our free market system. Now that they have a foothold, we will never get them out. They will infest everything from here on out. I apologize in advance for being so windy with this post, but this is something I feel strongly about.
I read a LOT of books and a lot of internet material. I stay away from the mainstream media because it is so biased and trivial that I become annoyed and scream at the TV. Once in a while I’m exposed to it accidentally and this only confirms my opinion.
I can’t link you to the source of my New Deal information. My most recent reading on this topic is: New Deal or Raw Deal? By Burton Folsom. You’ll have to hit the library. And reading this is truly ‘déjà view all over again.’
All of the programs that FDR tried willy-nilly over his 12 years (3 terms) had noble stated purposes, and very bad unintended consequences. You cannot adjust a single item in our social and monetary system without it causing a cascade of effects. (And by the way, FDR was the only president to serve three terms, at the end of which is own party introduced a bill to limit presidential terms to two!)
In the earlier post I mentioned the NRA (National Recovery Act) which set wages and prices in an attempt to ‘put more money in the pocket of the working man.’ There were higher minimum wages legally mandated for workers in various industries and higher prices set for goods to support those higher wages. The result was that smaller family-owned businesses which had competed on a local level with larger companies through lower prices could no longer do this. Their workers were willing to stay at lower wages to remain in their small towns with these small companies, but that became illegal – treasonous, even. Raising wages and prices made it impossible for the smaller companies to compete against national companies with their purchasing power and distribution systems. Defying the mandates sent men to jail. Businesses closed. Workers were put out of work, and had to move to large cities for jobs, or go on government relief. Wham! A generation of nomads and dependents.
To benefit female workers in Washington, DC, a minimum monthly salary was legislated, but it applied only to women. The result of this was that women lost their jobs to men who were willing to work for the lower wage. It was now illegal to pay these women their former lower salaries. Women were put out of work, another unintended consequence.
Tariffs on imports resulted in a drop in our export business. Then we had too much farm product being grown, not enough being sold, and prices dropping like a stone.
The AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Act) was designed to support crop prices and curb overproduction. Since we had begun taxing imports, fewer countries were buying our exports, so our farm products were rotting in the silos. The government had to destroy tons of it. So farm subsidies were instituted: If a farmer had 1000 acres, he might be offered money to take 10% of that out of production. The choice of which part of his land to designate as out of production was up to him. Most farms have wooded areas or poorly drained areas, etc. So the farmer would choose his poorest acreage - that had never grown a crop. Then he would take the subsidy money and buy fertilizer or use it to irrigate other poorly producing acreage. He would then start producing the crops that the government was guaranteeing good prices for (corn, wheat, cotton) and stop producing his other crops. Suddenly, production of corn, cotton and wheat went up, not down. And now we actually had to import some of the products which our farmers were no longer growing. The consequences were the exact opposite of the intent.
I won’t repeat all the information about the income tax. Let me just say that it is happening all over again, only FDR’s top rate was 79%, and the Obama administration wants 90% of the AGI bonuses, a cap on executive salaries. What’s next?
Excise taxes: Lets tax alcohol more, or tobacco, widgets, or electricity and gasoline to make everyone be “greener.” Taxing us for actual miles driven in our cars, what a great idea! It will be feasible as soon as everyone has a GPS tracker. I’ve heard ideas floating around about taxing internet usage, if they can figure a way to measure it
The WPA (Works Progress Administration) was another way to funnel money to supporters of the administration. If you could bring in the votes, you got to administer WPA funds in proportion to your usefulness. And in turn you could dole out jobs to those who were useful to you. This is in large part how FDR managed to get himself elected to three terms despite an unemployment rate around 20%. He controlled the money and the jobs. He had the ability to squeeze money out of any segment of society he chose. What terrible power to put in the wrong hands. Hiring and firing of WPA workers were cyclical, adding workers in the months before an election, dumping them shortly after, year after year, and it seems nobody caught on. They just agreed to vote whichever way would guarantee them a little work. And those who could not get work had to turn to the government for relief.
The ERA (Emergency Relief Act) supported by the new higher taxes had the unintended consequence of choking off the charitable contributions which had always gone to help the poor. A business owner being taxed at 79% is not feeling very charitable. So the government got to take this over, and become everyone’s benefactor. And these funds were given to governors to administer. Naturally, those states with the right sort of governor and constituency got the lion’s share of ‘relief.’ Both the WPA and the ERA were political patronage systems pure and simple.
And let’s not forget the voter fraud in FDR’s elections. Precincts recorded as 100% for FDR, when republicans in the precinct swore they had voted against him. Precincts recording more votes than registered voters living there. Seems they had an Acorn equivalent even then.
Someone on this board asked what possible purpose this administration could have for bringing down the wealthy. The answers should be obvious. Power. Envy. Covetousness. Revenge. And that favorite word of the new administration: Greed. Got news, though, if you try to take away from me something I have worked for and earned, you are the greedy one, not I.
To some, life is a zero-sum game. The amount of ‘stuff’ available to them is directly reduced by the amount I have. Therefore, I must give them half to level the playing field; maybe a little more than half to make up for the sins of my father and grandfather. It’s like a pie with only so many slices, and they deserve exactly what I have; it’s only fair. But life in America has never been that way. For centuries people have arrived here with nothing but the clothes on their back, taken a menial job, struggled, scrimped, persevered, and ended up owning the company. Others, who were born and raised here, feel they just can’t catch a break and wait passively for somebody else to give them the advantages they feel others have deprived them of.
So when I see this administration starting to take over businesses, cap salaries, tax ‘excess’ profits, legislate personal behavior, and all of the other intrusions that are yet to be disclosed, I am severely creeped out. The un-level playing field is exactly what caused the striving and competition and sparked all the energy and invention this country is known for. Smooth the playing field, give everybody a trophy, and a B on their report card, and I’m not sure what we end up with, but it sure as hades (oh, for the love of pete, the language police won't let me use the other H word) won’t be America.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. Ben Franklin
It's the sources you use for your research
and accept as gospel truth. Worse yet are the sources you refuse to accept as truthful and reliable sources to help you distinguish between propaganda and fact.
|
