Media "Control" of the Elections?

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

MSimon
Posts: 14333
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

the Iraq war, the biggest blunder in the country's history,
It was intended to change the face of the ME by promoting the idea of self government. It seems to be working well so far. They are planning to kick us out. Which is as self governing as you can get.

And we killed a lot of jihadis. That was good.

Plus we have left a reservoir of good will among the Kurds and others glad to see Saddam is gone. And to top it off their Army is American trained and probably the best Muslim Army in the Middle East.

But I'm willing to wait five or ten more years to see if the Influence of Iraq spreads. Time will tell.

As to the biggest blunder in the country's history? I believe that would be not attending to the warning signs of the Battle of the Bulge.
81,000 American casualties, including 23,554 captured and 19,000 killed.
In 40 days. We have sustained less than 1/4 of that killed in 5 years. All volunteers too. No draftees.
· In it's entirety, the "Battle of the Bulge," was the worst battles- in terms of losses - to the American Forces in WWII.
http://members.tripod.com/cav_trooper0/ ... /id38.html
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

jgarry
Posts: 109
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 7:02 pm

Post by jgarry »

[quote="ravingdave"][quote="jgarry"]Well since we can't agree agree on first principles, let's just end it with a hearty kiss off, then. I have no intention of debating the obvious with stubborn fools. Murdoch is a liberal? Please.[/quote]

Oh come on ! It's Fun! Just don't take it too seriously. :)



David[/quote]

Have a great day. I'm excited about the things I see on this web site. If something like a polywell fusion reactor ever were constructed it would be an unreal advance, a greater boon than the printing press.

MSimon
Posts: 14333
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."-President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraqis a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."-Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983."-Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18,1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."-Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process"-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."-Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."-Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation . And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
WELL WELL WELL!

SO NOW EVERY ONE OF THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!

TWO FACED OR WHAT?
WHO SHOULD WE BELIEVE AND WHEN SHOULD WE BELIEVE THEM????
http://members.tripod.com/cav_trooper0/ ... /id50.html
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14333
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

jgarry wrote:Well since we can't agree agree on first principles, let's just end it with a hearty kiss off, then. I have no intention of debating the obvious with stubborn fools. Murdoch is a liberal? Please.
Does that make T. Kerry a conservative because she owned a piece of Haliburton?

I guess by your debating with fools rule it does.
"Teresa Heinz Kerry liked the Cheney-run Halliburton enough to buy and sell more than a $250,000 in company stock in 1996, netting a tidy profit of up to $15,000, records show."
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Post by Aero »

scareduck wrote: Incompetent. Incurious. Unqualified.
Incompetent? No, she is the governor of a somewhat wealthy state and doing a reasonable job as far as has been reported.
Incurious? No, her job is focused in and on Alaska which does not really have a strong need to follow national politics.
Unqualified? No. Unqualified for president, probably yes, unqualified compared to Hilary, definitely yes, but compared to vice presidential candidates over the years, not so much. Take a close look at the inventor of the Internet, he sat as vice president for 8 years, but how qualified was he at the start of his first term? Yes, he was more in tune with national politics, but where else did he shine in the scheme of things vice-presidential?

Is it Mrs. Palin that offends you or do you have a problem with women in general?
Aero

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

scareduck wrote:
She couldn't come up with a single Supreme Court decision she disagreed with other than Roe v. Wade -- which is hilarious, because there was a significant decision that directly affected Alaska she railed against only months before. Link:
Couric asked Palin: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?

"Well, let's see,'' Palin said. "There's --of course --in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are -- those issues, again, like Roe v Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know -- going through the history of America, there would be others but...''

"Can you think of any?'' Couric asked.

"Well, I could think of -- of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level -- maybe I would take issue with,'' Palin said. "But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.''
Incompetent. Incurious. Unqualified.

I can tell you LOT's of Supreme court decisions I disagree with, but I can't name them properly. Put me in front of a reporter, and I would look very foolish attempting to remeber all the names I can't recall.

Apart from that, Naming one, (like Miranda vs. Whoever it was, ) would probably piss off a lot of people who agree with the decision.

I have a friend that's always going on about Marbury vs. Madison.

I vehemenently disagree with the Supreme Court Ruling allowing the Seizure of Private Property by a Government to be given to another private party for the purposes of economic development.

What was that case called ? HMMM.... without googling it, I don't know. Do you ?

What was the name of that Supreme court decision requiring detaines to be tried in American Federal Court ?


Hell, just look at any decision which had a majority with Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, or Kennedy, and I probably disagree with it. And that's just the LATEST Supreme court decisions. Go back in history, and I can find MANY more.

Who was the other half of Dred Scott ?

So, to get to the nitty gritty, Can YOU name several dozen supreme court decisions that YOU disagree with off the cuff ?

Be honest.

David

gblaze42
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:04 pm

republican conservative vs. democratic liberal

Post by gblaze42 »

Okay let's break it down to this,

A democratic liberal (supposedly) wants everyone to be the same, they tend to push for social programs and taxing the rich so they can give the money to the poor.

A republican conservative (supposedly) believes people are different, some will be wealthy and some won't, they believe that each person has the right to do what they want with their lives but not to be made to pay for other peoples mistakes/hardships/laziness. They opposed being taxed to provide for others, basically.

This is the way we typically understand the two. Of course there is many degree's between the two.

Any person who is rich, no matter what they say they their beliefs are, tend to be republican conservative, if they weren't they would have given their money away to others and end up like everyone else.

So now is Rupert Murdoch a liberal or conservative?

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

Corporate. Like I said.

The logic is silly. There are no rich liberals? Like the Forbes family (Kerry, et al)? Uh, they're not "true" liberals, because they still own the Gosnold Isles, and haven't donated them to a public trust?

You could perhaps argue that they're hypocritical. But not that they don't vote liberal. Murdoch could be a liberal, in theory.

Interesting article about Murdoch's leanings, and what *he* thinks of this issue: http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/200 ... hreatened/

Mike
Last edited by Mike Holmes on Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Re: DailyHowler

Post by djolds1 »

ravingdave wrote:A friend and I discussed Fox News and Rupert Murdoch today. From articles i've read, it is believed that Rupert Murdoch is a liberal, but Fox News is more conservative than other news sources. My friend asserted, and I tend to agree that Murdoch looked at the Media Landscape, and concluded there was money to be made by being different from the other News sources.

This decision appears to have paid off in spades, because it exploited a ready made constituency. Right leaning people who were frustrated by the years of Biased coverage from Most media sources.
Center-Right was a huge demographic not being served by "conventional" (aka MSM) sources. A large niche waiting to be filled.
jgarry wrote:Murdoch is a liberal? This nonsense speaks for itself.
Business /= ideology. Murdoch was one of Hillary's largest contributors.
Vae Victis

gblaze42
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:04 pm

Re: Media "Control" of the Elections?

Post by gblaze42 »

Aero wrote: But, as I said above, I don't know how to eliminate effects of media bias in future elections. It must be done, though, or we won't have a democracy.
After this election I have to agree with you, the only thing I can think of is a civil organization that emphasizes neutrality in reporting. They may want to start by recording the amount of times a certain news media company releases article, stories and reports. Then statistically represent, on a scale their degree's of neutrality, based on our understanding of neutrality, either leaning towards the left or right, for or against certain people places, things, then publishing it for everyone to see.

It won't be easy nor simple but doable.

gblaze42
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:04 pm

Post by gblaze42 »

Mike Holmes wrote:Corporate. Like I said.

The logic is silly. There are no rich liberals? Like the Forbes family (Kerry, et al)? Uh, they're not "true" liberals, because they still own the Gosnold Isles, and haven't donated them to a public trust?

You could perhaps argue that they're hypocritical. But not that they don't vote liberal. Murdoch could be a liberal, in theory.

Interesting article about Murdoch's leanings, and what *he* thinks of this issue: http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/200 ... hreatened/

Mike
How is it silly? It's the truth as we understand democratic liberalism and republican conservatism. You simply cannot be liberal with your money (give it away) and keep it at the same time. Yes what I was saying this would make them hypocrites.

Sure they can vote liberal and even have liberal stances but obviously the way they live is closer to being conservative.

And of course I did say that there are degree's of liberal/conservatism.

Mike Holmes
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm

Post by Mike Holmes »

The more I read about Murdoch, the more interesting he becomes. He supported Hilary in the last election, yes, and then had positive things to say about Obama. But he was very hawkish about the Iraq war (then again, many libs were, too), and helped get Thatcher and Major elected in GB.

Maybe he's - gasp - thoughtful?

Again, and again, the one thing that's consistent about Murdoch is that he seeks to gain a larger proportion of the media market. All while recognizing that it's becoming less and less possible (and claiming that this means that he cannot therefore be a monopoly). I think he's more interested in the money game than he is with policy.

Mike

P.S. Crossposted with GBlaze. How is a hypocritical liberal not a liberal (not that I buy that argument, either, but)? Rather, if in fact Murdoch supports liberal causes, that's the subject being debated. The media bias. As it happens, Murdoch brokered a "truce" with the Obama camp to make Fox act not so harshly towards Obama, if Obama would give them air time. Again, he's all about what makes the most profit, policy be damned.
Last edited by Mike Holmes on Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

gblaze42
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:04 pm

Father - Daughter talk`

Post by gblaze42 »

An old but good joke, thought it was appropriate, pardon me if it doesn't;



A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican party."

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

MSimon wrote:
the Iraq war, the biggest blunder in the country's history,
It was intended to change the face of the ME by promoting the idea of self government.
There've been a lot of blunders in 223 years of American history. Calling Iraq the worst is hyperbole.

The Iraq War was very effective at forcing regional change. At first. Libya gave up its nuke program, the Ceder Revolution in Lebanon, Iran shut down its nuke program (tho it didn't destroy the facilities), Iran and Syria treading very carefully around the US and even giving intel assistance.

Then the Bushies flubbed the continuity war "that would never happen." Idiots. They planned for nothing but the rose tinted mirrorshade scenario, and froze like deer in the headlights when that went bad. Incompetent weakness bred contempt and killed all the early gains.
MSimon wrote:It seems to be working well so far. They are planning to kick us out. Which is as self governing as you can get.
Obama seems to be pushing for a 20-70k residual force, essentially the prepositioning and forward command deal we had in Saudi in the '90s. Acceptable, a people far more sane than Wahhabis, and better geographic placement to influence the ME. Positive return on blood spent, not the cut and run Obama was promising/implying during the campaign.

In terms of foreign policy, I doubt history will be as harsh to Our Glorious Shrub as Left partisans hope.

Duane
Vae Victis

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

jgarry wrote:I withdraw my previous apology. The sky is green, grass is red, Murdoch is liberal.
Red States are Blue, and Blue States are Red...

Sorry, this just occured to me or I would have mentioned it earlier.

Red is the color of Communism/Socialism, Blue is the color of Royalty or Nobility. The old Traditional divide between the Left/Right in the Pre-Napoleonic French Legislature. The Peasants and Intellectuals against the Royals and Nobles.


For years, the media alternated the colors used to assign states, but starting with Bill Clinton in 1992, the Media stuck the Republicans with Red, and the Democrats with Blue, and in my observation have stuck with it ever since.

Now I have seen articles on line which state they have alternated since Bill Clinton, but My memory is that they did not do this.

Red is the color of the left , and Blue is the color of the Right.

They should put them back the way they are supposed to be and then leave them alone.

David

Post Reply