FoxNews-Telling lies?

I could just as easily say that to blindly persist in failure trying not to acknowledge you made a mistake is just as "anti-American."

Remember, that debate is over with. We are already there. If there is a debate, it is how to best win.

Anything else would undermine America's goals and, thus, be anti-American.

 

Yesterday, just 3 days before the Iraqi elections, Kennedy makes a public call for immediately removing 12,000 of our troops and a puplic plan for total troop removal...

You mischaracterize what he said.

From Senator Kennedy's speech:

...Once the elections are behind us and the democratic transition is under way, President Bush should immediately announce his intention to negotiate a timetable for a drawdown of American combat forces with the new Iraqi Government.

At least 12,000 American troops and probably more should leave at once, to send a stronger signal about our intentions and to ease the pervasive sense of occupation.

As Major General William Nash, who commanded the multinational force in Bosnia, said in November, a substantial reduction in our forces following the Iraqi election ?would be a wise and judicious move? to demonstrate that we are leaving and ?the absence of targets will go a long way in decreasing the violence."

America?s goal should be to complete our military withdrawal as early as possible in 2006...

http://kennedy.senate.gov/%7ekennedy/statements/05/1/2005127703.html

He is saying that the 12,000 troops should leave after the election.

Hell, most people don't even know Byrd was a member of the KKK

And most people probably don't know that Lott had made similar statements in the past and had actively supported segregation in college. While I certainly condemn their statements, I am willing to accept that one can have a genuine change of heart.

And Byrd issued the following statement after the incident, not just that he was 'tired':

"I apologize for the characterization I used on this program. The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today's society. As for my language, I had no intention of casting aspersions on anyone of another race."

The main reason for the coverage was that Lott was in a 'leadership' position. Now, like Byrd, Lott is just a regular ole Senator. During his campaign for Senate this year, Jim Demint stated that gays and single mothers who live with their boyfriends shouldn't be allowed to teach in public schools. There wasn't widespread coverage of this, and Demint is now the Senator from SC.

It is a silly standard. Apparently 'regular' Senators (Congressman) can say stupid crap all the time (Jesse Helms, etc.), but those in the leadership are the ones held to higher standards.

 

At least 12,000 American troops and probably more should leave at once, to send a stronger signal about our intentions and to ease the pervasive sense of occupation.

That is my point! If you vote, you will be worried about retailiation after the vote, as well as safty at the poles.

Telling them to vote so we can go home is the surest way to keep them home on polling day.

(By the way, good to see you DS77!)

 

Good to see you as well my friend.

Telling them to vote so we can go home is the surest way to keep them home on polling day.

Note he says 'after the democratic transition'. And telling them that they will be in control, and that we will then begin the process of leaving them alone to govern themselves, is a good way to encourage them to vote.

 

Yeah?

Ya think that is how al-Jazeera's covering it?

I don't.

 

And you think most Iraqis want the troops to stay?

 

And you think most Iraqis want the troops to stay?

Yes, though they are uncomfortable with them, they are afraid of what'll happen should they leave. They are between a rock and a hard place from their point of view.

That is why the prison scandel was so devistating to our efforts.

 

that was the choice that was made. To wish for failure or to even interfere with success does, indeed, make you anti-American.

I would again disagree with you. Dissent is allowed for, accomodated, and expected at any time. Just because a policy has been decided on doesn't mean one can't continue objecting to it. In fact, if this weren't the case, then it would be impossible to reverse policies. And that is certainly not the case.

After all, one could argue that for over half a century "the decision has already been made" on social security, and that we've committed ourselves to having a sort of "safety net." Thus, current attempts to privatize the system through personal accounts are "wishing for the policy to fail." Aren't constant warnings that the systme is in grave danger of collapse being "pessimistic" and "discouraging" those trying to accomplish this piece of American policy?

There are clearly defined legal limits to what is inappropriate dissent. That is called treason, and that is what is anti-American. Merely expressing a dissenting opinion, or continuing to hold that opinion after the policy you opposed has prevailed is not at all illegitimate. It is expected.

Hell, most people don't even know Byrd was a member of the KKK, much less that he still uses the "N" word.

And, as I mentioned, Thurmond's infamous past as a segregationist was also rarely mentioned once he died.

I think your issue is that you can't spot bias. You think if it agrees with you it must be unbias.

I must admit that I take some offense to this comment. Unlike many in this thread, and unlike the media outlets or political parties themselves, I've completely refrained from the finger pointing about who's "middle of the road" and whose extreme, who's balanced and who's biased. I've tried not to write off anyoene's arguments out of hand, and tried to accomodate the possibility for their correctness in all of my posts.

Further, I've tried to present logical arguments, and for every example of "media bias" that you cite, give other plausible explanations that could lead to the same behavior. Although you often disagree with the conclusions I come, I've not seen you assert that my alternative theories are flawed in some fundamental manner. I have to assume that that means you also consider them plausible. If this is not the case, let me know, and I can try again. But in light of several competing theories that are all valid, how can you conclude that anyone is right?

You'd need evidence that we simply don't have. Therefore, for you to repeatedly conclude that the cause is always liberal media bias over any other theory doesn't seem appropriate. Or, rather, it's perfectly fine in that we all have our favored theories. But to imply that your sure that yours is correct, and that my views are somehow skewed by my personal opinions is what I find mildly offensive.

I can separate my beliefs and what I "want" to be true from what "is" true just as well as you can. I've been trying to show that through my reasoning at every point in this debate. Please show me the same dignity I've showed you in this regard.

And now moving on, how are you concluding that liberal media bias is the most plausible explanation, when there are several others for the incidents you cite?

 

After all, one could argue that for over half a century "the decision has already been made" on social security, and that we've committed ourselves to having a sort of "safety net." Thus, current attempts to privatize the system through personal accounts are "wishing for the policy to fail."

Wanting to privatize SS is not "wishing the policy would fail", it is believing it will fail and trying to save it.

Your post seems to suggest that it is OK to hope we fail in Iraq. Since nothing good can come from that failure for the US, that is anti-American.

I think if you asked most of the guys here who think going into Iraq was wrong, they'll tell you we have to win now and hope for our own sakes we do.

I must admit that I take some offense to this comment. Unlike many in this thread, and unlike the media outlets or political parties themselves, I've completely refrained from the finger pointing about who's "middle of the road" and whose extreme, who's balanced and who's biased.

That's fine, though offending you was unintended.

My opinions are bias, it is the nature of opinions. But the facts I used to come to those opinions were unbias. I didn't make an opinion then try to prove it.

If you want us to loose this war, then you are unable to take you own bias out of the situation and size it up objectively. 'Cause, objectively, we need to win at this point.

Disaster is what awaits us as well as Iraq should we loose. That is a horrible thing to hope for just to prove you were right.

 

offending you was unintended.

That's fine. It needn't be an issue, then.

Wanting to privatize SS is not "wishing the policy would fail", it is believing it will fail

How can the same thing not be said of Kennedy's stance?

But the facts I used to come to those opinions were unbias. I didn't make an opinion then try to prove it.

Have I not done likewise?

If you want us to loose this war, then you are unable to take you own bias out of the situation and size it up objectively. 'Cause, objectively, we need to win at this point. Disaster is what awaits us as well as Iraq should we loose. That is a horrible thing to hope for just to prove you were right.

First off, since you switched the subject of your sentence, I just want to make it perfectly clear for the record that we were discussing Ted Kennedy. I never said anything about what I wanted to happen.

Secondly, with that established it depends on what you mean by "win." There is indeed great potential for disaster if we should "loose" in Iraq. It would be unwise to take that position.

However, I still feel that within certain parameters, it is acceptable to hope a policy will fail, even the Iraq policy.

That is, it depends specifically on what is meant by failure. If by failure, you mean collapse and disaster, then that's just wishing disaster on the country, which isn't a very good thing. There is, however, an alternative.

When you disagree with a policy, you probably do so because you believe it will have soem negative consequence or effect. Therefore, you can wish the policy to "fail" in the sense that it is so ineffective that this negative consequence is never realized. For instance, if one believed the Iraq war was about trying to illegitimately install a pro-US government in the Middle East, one might wish it to fail. Not in the sense of Iraq becoming "the next Afghanistan" (a failed state--I'm referring to the Taliban era, to be clear) but in the sense that the US is never successful enough to install a pro-US government, and that instead, the Iraqi people get to choose who they would really like to govern them, free from any American influence. Under those conditions, you would be wishing "failure" on an Americna policy without wishing disaster on the country itself.

Or say back in the pre-Civil War era, you disagreed with the US policy of making slavery legal. You could hope that the policy would "fail." This doesn't have to mean you hoped the slaves would rise up in a bloody revolt and utterly destroy the country and all its inhabitants. Instead, it could mean that you hope that the slaves could escape, and live peacefully elsewhere. Thus, the policy advancing slavery would be foiled, or would have "failed," but no disaster would've coem on the country.

In conclusion, to blanket all meanings of "hoping a policy fails" as the same without considering the context of the statement is unwise. There are several circumstances under which such a statement could be made without it implying that the person is wishing anything ill on the country, or is being "anti-American."

 

36% of high school students say the press has too much freedom. This is kind of...disturbing. These people are going to run this country some day? Luckily I plan to be out of here long before then.

 

Here's the story...I couldn't get the link to work...


TV, RADIO, & ONLINE
CNN clarifies Iraq comments
By Mark Jurkowitz, Globe Staff | February 8, 2005

Two weeks ago at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, CNN's chief news executive, Eason Jordan, raised eyebrows when he suggested that some of the 63 journalists who have been killed in Iraq had been targeted by US troops. Although Jordan quickly tempered the remarks, a controversy has been building over them on the web. CNN has responded, issuing a statement clarifying Jordan's comments.

Jordan made his remarks at a panel discussion on Jan. 27 in Davos about the media and democracy. Several sources, including the author of a weblog written at the event, said Jordan quickly amended his comments. Since then, the web has been abuzz with commentary about Jordan's statement and his intentions. CNN's statement says Jordan ''was not clear enough in explaining his assertion."

''While the majority of the 63 journalists killed in Iraq have been killed by insurgents, the Pentagon has acknowledged that the US military on occasion has killed people who turned out to be journalists," the CNN statement said. ''Mr. Jordan emphatically does not believe that the US military intended to kill journalists and believes these accidents to be cases of 'mistaken identity.' " A CNN spokeswoman, Christa Robinson, added that ''Eason clarified his position during the panel."

Still, a statement released yesterday by a spokesman for Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, said the senator, who was in the audience for the discussion, was ''outraged by the comments."

Representative Barney Frank, who was on the panel, told The Boston Globe yesterday that attendees ''perked up" after Jordan made remarks that ''sounded like accusing the military of deliberate targeting." Frank said Jordan then backed off a bit, saying he wasn't indicating that such targeting represented US military policy.

The discussion moderator, David Gergen, director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, said yesterday that Jordan seemed ''deeply concerned about the dangers to his own team" in Iraq.

The Committee to Protect Journalists, a nonprofit organization based in New York, says nine journalists and at least two media support workers have been killed by fire from US forces in Iraq, according to the organization's Middle East program coordinator, Joel Campagna. Campagna said that the group has not concluded that any deaths resulted from deliberate targeting of journalists but that some cases raised issues of ''fire discipline and indiscriminate fire."

If Mr. Jordan thinks his reporters are being targeted by the US military, how unbias do you believe CNN is?

If Barney Frank and Dodd thought it was an acusation, it was.

EDIT: Damn link won't work...

 

Yes, but your claim would hold more weight if it showed who he was biased against. The troops? They're not a political organization.

 

Some reporters have been killed by US fire. This is a fact and part of the point being made. The same way members of the US military have been killed by members of the US military. This was not an attempt by CNN to target the US military and accuse them of targetting the media, don't be ridiculous.

Keep digging.

And I'm curious, you think CNN is bias but FauxNews is not?

 

From the article...Representative Barney Frank, who was on the panel, told The Boston Globe yesterday that attendees ''perked up" after Jordan made remarks that ''sounded like accusing the military of deliberate targeting." Frank said Jordan then backed off a bit, saying he wasn't indicating that such targeting represented US military policy.

F_I_D said...Yes, but your claim would hold more weight if it showed who he was biased against.

Bias against the war, The Pentagon, and thus the Bush Administration.

 

Bias against the war, The Pentagon, and thus the Bush Administration.

Very clever, I didn't think you could string something that asinine together. Being against the war does not necessarily include the other two. You're aware of that, yes?

 

Very clever, I didn't think you could string something that asinine together. Being against the war does not necessarily include the other two. You're aware of that, yes?

Give one example of one person who has even implied,"Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time, I hate and distrust the military, but GWB is my boy!

C'mon, bro!

BTW: Never underestimate my power to string many asinine facts together.

 

I'll get back to you tomorrow. I'm going to bed.

 

Give one example of one person who has even implied,"Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time, I hate and distrust the military, but GWB is my boy!

C'mon, bro!

I'd think some Republicans secretly feel that way.

 

I'd think some Republicans secretly feel that way.

How's that fit to the arguement?

 

Well you said name one instance where someone disagreed with the war but still supported GWB.

 

Well you said name one instance where someone disagreed with the war but still supported GWB.

Yes I did, then you went ahead and said,"I'd think..."

That is a supposition, not an instance. So again, name a person who hates the Iraq War, distrusts the military and the Pentagon, but supports Bush.

 

Didn't John McCain comment negatively on the war, and he supported Bush. (I could be wrong here, I don't do quotes.)

 

As an AZ citizen, I know all about that. He wanted more troops and was critical of the handling of the war. But supported the war itself.