Sorry ... call like I see it!

Never apologize for being honest,DBM. It is a quality your opponent cannot match.

I am given to understand that Fox News leads in the 18 - 49 demographic, but popularity is not so laudable when they seem to get caught lying and cheating ( showing crowd shots that represent other occasions than the one touted).

Those who crow about such crap will someday eat crow I trust.

My apologies that I’ve been too busy recently.

My only thought as I read what you say is that it is absolutely frightening that such a large number of people

a) Cite a lying biased source as their main window on the world, and
b) Are so slanted in their world views that they don’t realise it.

No wonder anti-war and anti-corporate policies are political suicide in this barren intellectual desert!

Sorry ... call like I see it!

I still believe FOX News is no more partisan or ideological than any other cable or network news outlet.  Particularly MSNBC.  But, DAMN, FOX sure beats the pants off everyone else in terms of what people choose to follow.

Poll: Fox Trounces MSNBC in Influence
Posted by David Paul Kuhn

As the cable wars carry on, a new poll finds that Fox News informs roughly five adults for every one adult informed by MSNBC.

The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll asked: “From which ONE of the following national television news sources do you get MOST of your information about politics and current events?”

Fully 27 percent said Fox. Only 5 percent said MSNBC. Meanwhile, 16 percent said CNN and 36 percent cited the major networks.

But the contest of note is MSNBC and Fox. The rivalry, the networks, have become surrogates for the two political tribes of American politics. The blue tribe controls Washington but this is one bout the red tribe takes with ease.

Meanwhile, as The New York Times details, CNN falls behind MSNBC for the first time this year in the ratings race. But as the Journal poll would hint, and so much data has before, on top is Fox — 2009 marks Fox’s greatest ratings year yet. It’s no wonder President Obama eventually decided that even he could no longer ignore this Fox.

New York Times Details

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/business/media/17cnn.html

DBM,

I hope your recovery is going better than expected.  I assume you’re now in the middle of Phys. rehab?

Hi there,

I am very busy just now but will respond to you other comments soon(ish!).

Thanks for the link, I love stories like that as I consider much of the news to be carefully crafted.  That there are PR/communications experts managing what comes out the White House is about as surprising as finding a spy working in an embassy ... I mean who’d have thought!

You might also be interested in http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3323 ... and any number of other things from the site (one of my favourites).

I’m sure you’ll find interesting reading here as well http://mediamatters.org/reports/

In the category of interesting….

Media follow White House script:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/30007.html

DBM,

Two things.  Do you watch reliable Sources on Sunday mornings on CNN?  Basically it’s a program devoted to, and in no way conservative in nature, how the media handles current affairs.

This week one issue was how the president’s poll standings are playing in the media.  Bill Press, author of “Train Wreck: The end of a conservative revolution”, and Howard Kurts discussed how the patina of Mr. Obama is somewhat wearing off. - “he actually doesn’t walk on water” and, his showing in the polls, they agreed, has something do to with how “the press’ ‘played up Obama during the campaign”.

“How THE PRESS played up Obama during the campaign”.  You have got to admit that the press as a whole held up Senator Obama, almost, as the second coming.  It’s impossible not to have seen the desirous treatment Mr. Obama received.

2. You must try and find the NBC promo which ran during the the Today Show concerning the president’s speech this evening.  Yes, you read that right.  NBC ran an actual promotion of the president’s speech.  This is what you believe is conservative news media?

DBM,

A brief followup: The links you supplied concerning Trickle Down and Supply Side, all very interesting, bolsters what I wrote previously.  Many people conflate the terms Trickle Down and Supply Side, however, these remain two very distinct and separate economic models dealing with two distinct and separate issues that can play off each other or, work in concert.

None of this changes the fact that you have come to believe that Bush’s tax cuts hurt the treasury and economy.  None of this changes the fact that you have been mislead by your chosen sources.

1.  How do you explain the fact that both IRS numbers and CBO studies completely disagree with you and millions of democrats/progressives?

2. Where did you get this gross misinformation but not for the media/democratic party?

3. If, as you have come to believe, the media is as conservative as you think, why was this gross misinformation embedded into the minds of multiples of millions of people to the detriment of the conservative movement? 

4. You believe the overwhelming conservative media propagated these lies directly from the democratic and socialist parties?  That the conservative media gave these misleading ideas to Hugo Chavez, the Castro Brothers and Michael Moore to repeat over and over ad nauseum?

DBM - “I can only assume that wherever you posted this originally, you are again playing at the game of setting up easily discounted “liberal positions” and shooting them down.  Progressives are fairly universally opposed to illegal war, kidnapping, torture, loss of civil rights (especially habeus corpus), illegal spying (especially domestically) and assuming the executive branch to be completely above the law.”

Do you believe that moderates and conservatives do not agree with you on all of the above?  As far as I know most everyone is against the same.  It’s largely an overall disagreement on what is and is not Illegal, or what is or is not kidnapping, or what constitutes torture that many people of all backgrounds disagree on. —It really comes down to context and perspective.

Senator Obama was against “torture”.  Candidate Obama was against “torture”. President Obama, after entering the Oval and being fully briefed and educated on how the world works, has made it clear that he reserves the right to use “enhanced interrogations”, rendition, wire taps, tribunals etc., when he determines that safety and/or national security issues are at risk.  Does that not speak volumes about what you think you know and understand?  Why did Mr. Obama completely change is tune after being fully briefed on national and global issues?

The world remains the same, my friend. But the president’s understanding of the world and national security issues has changed dramatically!

-

“You say that now that Obama has failed to discontinue these policies that progressive thinker “essentially say: Oh Shit…Bush was right…we actually NEED these tools and tactics?”.

I actually didn’t say or write that.

-

The links you supplied, all very interesting, bolsters what I wrote previously.  Many people conflate the terms Trickle Down and Supply Side, however, these remain two very distinct and separate economic models dealing with two distinct and separate issues that can play off each other or, work in concert.

-

“Obama is in danger of alienating his base by failing to change these policies. “

You are correct.

-

“The fact that the mainstream media does not completely pillory him on this but reports instead on some “process” of change which doesn’t seem to get anywhere is a function of their hugely conservative bias.”

Or the mainstream media is so desirous of Obama that they wish not to be too critical and, therefor, not put him in a bad light.  <—this, again, looks like you’re increasingly upset that the media is not as “left” as you are and not pushing your agenda.  This is certainly not evidence of a conservative slant.

Over 50% of the nation believes the media leans Left.  Nearly 70% of the nation believes the bulk of the media HEAVILY supported Mr. Obama in the last election. 

13% of the nation believes the media leans Right.  9% of the nation believes the media supported McCain.  In the latest polls I’ve seen those who actually work within the media, by a margin of 6 to 1, believe candidate Obama received more favorable coverage than did candidate McCain.

I always wonder to myself how far left one must be to believe the media is largely conservative when a full 80% of those working within the media are self proclaimed democrats who fiercely and fearlessly proclaim their independence from management.

I can only assume that wherever you posted this originally, you are again playing at the game of setting up easily discounted “liberal positions” and shooting them down.  Progressives are fairly universally opposed to illegal war, kidnapping, torture, loss of civil rights (especially habeus corpus), illegal spying (especially domestically) and assuming the executive branch to be completely above the law.  You say that now that Obama has failed to discontinue these policies that progressive thinker “essentially say: Oh Shit…Bush was right…we actually NEED these tools and tactics?”.

Sorry but what utter bullshit!  Show me the quote from a progressive thinker or writer who says that?  Obama is in danger of alienating his base by failing to change these policies.  Not enough people expected them to change immediately, so he has been given “time”.  The fact that the mainstream media does not completely pillory him on this but reports instead on some “process” of change which doesn’t seem to get anywhere is a function of their hugely conservative bias.

Look, there are many people, myself included, who perceive Obama to be a much capable and effective man than Bush.  That has nothing to do with the policies he has failed to change.  Since most of these activities are clearly illegal, they should be stopped immediately by the first right-minded person to get the authority to do so.  Anything less is a disappointment to say the least.  If the least conservative of the two options you are presented with in your political spectrum cannot even do that, there is something very seriously wrong with the political system.  I hope it is not terminal.

I’m afraid your economics knowledge may be somewhat coloured by your politics.  The best article I could find for you on Supply-side Economics is this one (http://www.investopedia.com/articles/05/011805.asp?viewed=1) which starts out with the broadly accepted definition of the theory:

“Supply-side economics is better known to some as “Reaganomics”, or the “trickle-down” policy espoused by former U.S. president Ronald Reagan. He popularized the controversial idea that greater tax cuts for investors and entrepreneurs provides incentives to save and invest and produce economic benefits that trickle down into the overall economy.”

It is worth a read if you don’t understand that, although the term “trickle-down” has gone out of vogue because it’s never happened, it is nonetheless the basis of “supply-side” economic theory.

If you want to read an article biased against supply side try this one (http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0514-20.htm).

If you want to read one biased in favour of supply side try this one (http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/2008/12/demand-side-vs-supply-side-economics.html).  But beware that this guy blithely says that Reagan “for the most part, cut government spending” but fails to back this up with numbers ... largely because the numbers show this to be untrue.  Reagan (and Bush Sr) quadrupled the U.S. National Debt.  Clinton, whatever else his foibles, actually started to reduce this National Debt (although this was potentially fuelled by tax revenues from the Tech Bubble) while Bush Jr completely sent the National Debt of the rails and Obama has continued the same wild spending policies (albeit confronted with a unique economic challenge unseen since FDR took office).  So for this author, the facts don’t matter as much as the politics and history can be re-written to support his point.

DBM,

I posted much of this below on another post and thought it apropos to post here.

-

I find it fascinating that many people are witnessing two U.S. Presidents doing the very same things for the very same reasons, however, one is a bum/dunce/idiot/and scary but, the other simply brilliant.

You either condemn both in equal fashion or you vindicate each of them.

Guantanamo, military tribunals, renditions, indefinite detention, intercepts, Predators, wiretaps, and, yes, “enhanced interrogations”, have for year been held up as uniquely “Bush” and, signs of evil Neo-con intent.  Now this no longer holds true.

Basically “progressive” thinkers have been wrong for eight years.  I wonder aloud how it must feel to have the progressive thinking Obama come to office and, contrary to his campaign rhetoric, essentially say; Oh Shit…Bush was right…we actually NEED these tools and tactics?

If the subject matter were not so serious this would be funny.  No more evil Neo-Cons in the White House but, the globe remains the same.

Either Bush and Obama are equally stupid/idiotic/and scary or, Bush has been resoundingly vindicated in all of the above.  Which is it?

DBM,

I think you misunderstood my use of the term “supply side economics” -not to be confused with “trickle down theory” which, I think, you actually meant to highlight and take exception to.

If you look at the IRS numbers and the CBO report you’ll find that when tax rates were lowered after 2000 revenue to the treasury increased.  Not decreased, as you strongly suggested (democrats requested the CBO report and, when they didn’t like the outcome, quickly swept it away but, continued with the lie that the Bush tax cuts hurt the economy).

My point was in how you have heard so many times that the 2001 tax cuts hurt the treasury that it’s become “common knowledge”.  When, in reality, it’s simply untrue.

If you look back at your last post you’ll see you were making arguments against things not previously discussed.  In essence you changed the subject.

-

Supplied side economics is in use every day to great success.  China’s economic boom in recent years is due largely to the model.  It is, in essence, the driving force behind every growing economy in the world.  Again, are you conflating Supply Side and Trickle Down into a single model?

Japan employs a terrific model of Supply Side wherein Japanese companies only produce what’s needed or pre-ordered.  By contrast, to say, American auto manufacturers, which wastefully produces autos and holds them, at the rising cost of warehousing them, in hopes of selling.

Supply Side remains the reining model of our times.  I suggest it’s only the term that’s fallen out of favor by anti-capitalists.  It’s far from dead in practice.

Ah Go Right ... who are we to believe?  Again, I am impressed that you’ve gone to source numbers to make your point.  I am certainly not one to suggest that “it’s all too hard for us common folk to understand” (which many in the financial sector and financial press would have us think).  However, I can think of a few numbers behind the numbers which would water down your argument.  The first which comes to mind is that if the top 1% were receiving about 40 times the average (as in the 1970’s) and are now receiving more like 400 times the average, then you’d expect them to be paying a lot more tax than they were ... a whole lot more tax. 

If that’s not enough then how about looking at that leftie rag Forbes Magazine, who tries to soften the message but nonetheless reports that—surprising to some—the rich cheat on their taxes because they can (http://www.forbes.com/2008/10/21/taxes-irs-wealth-biz-beltway-cz_jn_1021beltway.html):

“In its 2001 tax gap study, the IRS estimated that individuals underreported business income by 43% overall. Sole proprietors, who report self-employment income on schedule C of their tax returns, underreported their income a stunning 57%.  By contrast, the IRS found, 99% of all wages were reported by individual tax filers. The obvious explanation is that workers have no choice—their employers report their earnings to the IRS and withhold taxes on them.”

And at the very top ... they don’t even pretend to know how much tax is being withheld:

“Those earning $2 million plus had an 11% underreporting rate. But Slemrod told Forbes that he was “less comfortable” with that finding, noting that the very rich may have made use of techniques that IRS research audits didn’t detect. ‘I just don’t know whether these audits were able to track down really sophisticated noncompliance or Swiss bank accounts. They may underestimate it (noncompliance) at the top,’’ he says.”

But hey, let’s go to that rabidly communist pinko leftie champion of the poor, the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123431935722571333.html):

“Beyond issues of tax compliance, recent data on the effective income tax rates paid by the wealthy are fueling calls for a redistribution of the tax burden. The IRS released data this month showing that the effective income tax rate on the 400 highest-income individual returns fell to just over 17% in 2006, down from 22% before President George W. Bush took office.”

Democrats all no doubt, but surely they aren’t all conspiring to cook the figures and make the rich look look like they’ve been getting away with more and more tax avoidance for years.  Are they?

Oh, and “supply side economics”??  Come now, this was an economic theory in the 1970’s that was put to the test in the 1980’s and beyond.  The jury is long since in.  The mathematical model works but the policies do not ... not anywhere ... not any time.  In every case where supplyside economics has been utilised (essentially giving more disposable income to the rich because they are likely to invest and stimulate economic activity) it has failed.  It seems that, mostly, the rich are keener on consumption than investment.  Worse, when this has been coupled with financial deregulation resulting in fanciful but non-productive investment assets, even the saving and investment of the rich has helped no-one ... except the rich.  Sorry my friend, the boat sailed long ago.  It is still quoted a lot though, as it provides a fig leaf of moral cover for ripping off the poor and middle class.

DBM,

I understand how and why you honestly believe that “Bush’s tax cuts to the wealthy” hurt the treasury. You believe it because it’s been repeated by the Left leaning elite media, and Washington democratic pundits, so many times it’s become “common knowledge”, however, it’s simply untrue.

This outright untruth has been repeated by almost every major news outlet in the nation. There are better sources of information. Much better! I beg you study the actually numbers and ignore the so-called news media.  They are keeping people like Manchild, all too willing to be lead around by the nose, ignorant of the facts.

I am heavily of the mind to believe that you’re not a simple thinking individual. But I believe you rely much too heavily on media sources (80% self-identified democrats)

Part I

Let us look at IRS and CBO figures and dismiss, completely, the elite media sources some people lean so heavily on (those who desire only to be told what to think).

Talk about lies from the media.  Good God!

According to the IRS the top 5% of income earners pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%).

The bottom 50%? They pay a mere 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.

This proves that it was not the tax cut that caused revenues from the rich to fall, but the recession and the stock market crash. In other words, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If you are going to benefit from the rich paying more taxes, due to progressivity, on the upside, you are going to lose more revenue from these people on the downside. This is a good argument for reducing progressivity.

Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? No, more like “thousandaires.” The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 2001. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don’t want to, aren’t.

Here’s a New York Times headline which appears to support what you have come to believe.

New York Times: Report Finds Tax Cuts Heavily Favor the Wealthy) -http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/13/politics/campaign/13tax.html

Contrary to the HEADLINE, and found only deep into the article, it is stated; “Those are the people, however, who pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes.”

That was a wow moment for me personally.  The New York Times finally makes that admission. This used to never show up anywhere near a mainstream press report on tax cuts. In addition the Times reports: “In addition, the report (CBO) gave Republicans support for their contention that tax reduction had brought some benefit to people in almost all income categories.”—“People with the bottom fifth of income, for example, averaging earnings of $16,000 a year saw their effective tax rate drop to 5.2% from 6.7%. Yet because lower and many middle-income families have been paying very little federal income tax in the first place, those in that bottom fifth of earnings received an average tax cut of only $250.”

Well, there’s the story! But what’s the headline? “Report Finds Tax Cuts Heavily Favor the Wealthy.”

NEVER feel content simply following the media.  We must go to the source(s).

Part II

A new CBO report produced at the request of congressional Democrats confirms that tax cuts since 2001 increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest earners. Increased! It increased the share of federal income taxes paid by the highest earners, while decreasing the tax share of lower and middle income groups. This always happens. Every time you lower the marginal rates they end up paying more, because they report more income, and there’s more tax on the income because the rates are lower, so they’re reporting more income. They pay more taxes. Their share of the total bite increases even though their tax rate goes down. This has always been the case. That’s the whole point of supply-side economics. You know, this is what’s never ceased to amaze me. The Democrats have always run around and said the rich need to pay their fair share. They’re paying more than their fair share! And every tax cut they get they end up paying even more, of more of their fair share.

The CBO analysis, Effective Tax Rates Under Law, 2001 to 2014, shows that the income tax remains highly progressive, the top 5% of earners paying more than half of all federal income taxes. As a result of the tax cuts since 2001, all taxpayers face lower effective federal income tax rates than they would have without the tax cuts. While many characterize the CBO report as evidence that the tax cuts shifted the burden of taxation to the middle class, the CBO data show precisely the opposite effect. The tax cuts actually made the tax system more progressive. The highest 20% of earners now pay a larger share of federal income taxes than they would have without the tax cuts.

Read the Actual CBO Report…
(CBO.gov: Effective Federal Tax Rates Under Current Law, 2001 to 2014)
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5746&type=1

It’s interesting that your liberal news outlets, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, the Times, The Wash. Times, Herald et al, always fail to mention that during the Bush years taxes were cut to 0% for the lowest 40% of Americans.  Why is that and, were you aware of it?

Perhaps it isnt printed because it isnt true….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61178-2004Aug12.html

Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle
Presidential Campaigns Draw Differing Conclusions From Report

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 13, 2004; Page A04

Since 2001, President Bush’s tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the presidential election campaign.

The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.

Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.
*****************************************
The poorest taxpayers did, according to the article, see their share of taxes drop from 1.2% to 1.1%......

Thanks for that ... much better than the sources I found with that quick search.  I don’t have any reason to suggest that a Federal Reserve Bank President would have a bias (let’s leave out The Heritage Foundation!) but he does mix his measures a little by talking about the “infinite horizon discounted value” of costs then comparing it to the finite 12 month annual output of the economy.  It’s like suggesting you could never buy a house that is worth more than your annual disposable income.  I find it particularly interesting that he is initially talking about Social Security.  Social Security in the U.S. was supposed to be collected separately from taxes and kept separately to fund Social Security payments upon retirement.  Starting a long time ago governments started to help themselves to that money for annual expenditure and NOW it’s an unfunded liability which requires cut-backs!

I can tell you that there have been warnings of impending catastrophe with government (taxpayer) funded healthcare in every country it exists for years.  Almost invariably the suggested solution has been to hand over large portions of the money going in taxes to private enterprise who will be naturally more efficient and have their customer’s best interests at heart.  Personally, I think a “blended” system works well but the fully public systems I’ve lived with worked better than the corporate health services I’ve lived with.  That’s just personal experience but there are statistics which support the view if you believe them.

All government expenditure is something that needs to be looked at constantly and carefully.  This is especially true of countries who are amassing worrying levels of public debt.  Very large organisations are prone to waste and inefficiency (hence the failure of centrally controlled economies).  That is why the Bush tax cuts coupled with expenditure increases were one of the worst cases of mismanagement in his presidency.  However, there are some things which are done better by government.  Where to draw the line is one of the major points of disagreement between “conservatives” and “progressives”.  Conservatives in the U.S. have taken the idea that private enterprise is more efficient than government in all cases to an extreme which I consider nuts.  Privatisation of disaster recovery, policing and the military are prime examples.  There are valid arguments to be made for NOT privatising natural monopolies such as energy grids, other utilility networks and air traffic control. 

Personally, given my own experience and what I’ve seen and read, I believe that healthcare is also a special case.  Not because it is prone to monopoly but because the consumer is operating with far less expertise than the producers.  Getting healthcare is in no way like shopping.  you do not have the expertise and you need treatment.  Put a few money hungry operators in that scenario and there will be inefficiencies alright!!

I earnestly look forward to the day when there is a robust public discussion along the lines of “The current levels and growth rates of military spending will exceed $50 Trillion over the next 30 years.  This level of spending will impoverish the nation leading to further cuts in spending on education, welfare, infrastructure maintenance and the chances of meaningful healthcare reform will be removed.  What can we do about it?  Is this the right way to spend money we don’t really have?  What do we get for it?”  But no, let’s just pretend that expenditures are only $500B or so ... this year.  Next year is of no interest unless there is a plan to grow by less then 5 or 10%.

DBM - “the “bipartisan spending spree” of the Bush years is only a “spree” when you dramatically cut taxes on the rich at the same time to maximise the annual deficit.—This is “CONSERVATIVE”??!?!?

You may have noticed that working and voting conservative Americans rebelled tremendously against the republican lead congress spending like drunken sailors. Just as conservatives railed against the same when democrats held the reins. <—Washington and media republicans are NOT real, DBM.  Working democrats and republicans are.  There’s a canyon difference.

It’s interesting that your liberal news outlets, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, the Times, The Wash. Times, Herald et al, always fail to mention that during the Bush years taxes were cut to 0% for the lowest 40% of Americans.  Why is that and, were you aware of it?

DBM,

If it interests you I could locate the below speech in it’s entirety.  Note that my numbers led me to a different mathematical conclusion (I don’t fully comprehend Medicare Part D and it’s machinations). This excerpt, however, will suffice in lending weight to my claims on Medicare.

Also, and I know this reading can be dry as all get out, see the supplied link for some added insight and context.  I tend to go to the source and study an issue myself.

I first learned of the unfunded liabilities of Medicare during a Heritage Foundation symposium last year. I again heard it talked about a short time later by Peter Horzag on the Jim Lehrer report. 

—

Federal Reserve Bank President Richard W. Fisher
Speech on May 28, 2008:

“Unless we take steps to deal with it, the long-term fiscal situation of the federal government will be unimaginably more devastating to our economic prosperity than the sub-prime debacle and the recent debauching of credit markets that we are now working so hard to correct.”

“The amount of money the Social Security system would need today to cover all unfunded liabilities from now on — what fiscal economists call the ‘infinite horizon discounted value’ of what has already been promised recipients but has no funding mechanism currently in place — is $13.6 trillion, an amount slightly less than the annual gross domestic product of the United States.

“The good news is this Social Security shortfall might be manageable. While the issues regarding Social Security reform are complex, it is at least possible to imagine how Congress might find, within a $14 trillion economy, ways to wrestle with a $13 trillion unfunded liability.

“The bad news is that Social Security is the lesser of our entitlement worries. It is but the tip of the unfunded liability iceberg. The much bigger concern is Medicare. Unfunded liability for Medicare A is $34.4 trillion. The unfunded liability of Medicare B is an additional $34 trillion. The shortfall for Medicare D adds another $17.2 trillion.”

The total? If you wanted to cover the unfunded liability of all three programs today, you would be stuck with an $85.6 trillion bill. That is more than six times as large as the bill for Social Security.”

Scarily, he added that that’s more than six times the annual output of the entire U.S. economy.

Try this. Added together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon. Traditional Medicare composes about 69 percent, the new drug benefit roughly 17 percent and Social Security the remaining 14 percent.

Honestly, does this give you pause in believing that Medicare should be held up as successful?  You should look deeper than ANY media source and take a good look at the catastrophes waiting to happen in Britain, Germany, France and Canada.  Some scary stuff, my friend.

—

This report to the Congress lends a good deal of added context.

http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2008/08frusg.pdf

Oh, and the “bipartisan spending spree” of the Bush years is only a “spree” when you dramatically cut taxes on the rich at the same time to maximise the annual deficit.

This is “CONSERVATIVE”??!?!?

Hey Go Right,

I don’t really expect you to produce 100 examples ... it’s just that you keep saying you could as an answer to anything I paraphrase or quote from Fox.  We’ve neither time nor space for it I’m sure.

Re Medicare and the $68Trillion.  That is a scary number to be sure.  In fact, without even doing any math, I can assure you that your current $1Trillion + PER YEAR military budget will top that in the 50 years (which is no doubt the sort of time frame that is being considered).  The only discussion there seems to be about how much increase every year is enough.

Still, you said “68 Trillion” enough times in your update to make me want to find out where it came from.  You know there’s “lies, damn lies and statistics” ... so I like to see where numbers come from.  Especially scary numbers.  So, a quick Google turned up a WSJ article.  There’s a newspaper firmly in the corporate corner but a reputable source no doubt ... except the “68 Trillion” was in a forum comment not the article. 

Ok, on we go ... next source a PAC for Michelle Bachmann!  Great, a contender for wing-nut-of-the-year, maybe this is it.  But no, even there it is a forum entry rather than the main text.  Next up, “Family Security Matters” ... now for me, when I see words like “family” (as in Family Research Council) I expect a corporate funded astro-turf outfit or an ultra-conservative “give us your money or you don’t really love your family” group.  Still, everyone deserves a read.  The article is fantastic!  The key quote is “the ‘infinite horizon’ unfunded liability of Medicare alone stands at $85.6 trillion”.  Wow!  That’s even more than $68 Trillion and only over an infinite period!  The great thing about the article is that it is essentially saying that this is wasted on Healthcare instead of violence.  Indeed, describing the Bush years: “... the parties went on a bipartisan spending spree. Some of it was for national defense and homeland security, which made sense…”.

Next stop (and believe me, I’m just taking these in order) is a site I didn’t want to spend too much time on.  Let’s just say that having agreed that Senator Joe Wilson may be a racist, the author said that so are the President and First Lady but “I am not saying any of that is even wrong, everyone believes their race to be somewhat better”.  Still, this was the first place where I find the $68Trillion in the main text of the article.

Anyhow, you see my point.  Most government expenditures sound huge when you extrapolote over enough years.  Strangely, few “conservatives” seem to worry about going to the U.S.‘s main global competitor to borrow funds to occupy the countries of two minor players with tangential impact on the country.  To me, that’s not a conservative position at all.  It’s dangerously radical.

Now, my contention that Medicare works in most places is based on living in many of those places.  I have lived in five countries and have close family in a couple of others.  Of these, the worst health system to deal with was the U.S.  You talk of impending changes in Canada and Britain regarding Healthcare.  I can tell you that these programs have been in place for many generations now.  There have always been business-oriented political parties scavenging around the large numbers these programs involve but to privatise them would be a guaranteed election loser.  The people know they’ve got it good.

You want to pay for Medicare and Social Security?  Cut the military budget by 75% (still leaving by far the largest budget in the world), bring home the troops from Europe, Asia, South American and Oceania, and then enjoy the surplus ... maybe spend some on education while you’re at it.

DBM,

Now I’m to produce “100 examples” for every one you lend here?  I’ve already given you several examples of similar or identical criticisms of the types of things you’ve complained about in FOX.  Why must I produce one-hundred to your one?

-

“Some form of Medicare for All is successfully supported by every other Western democracy.”

This is a wonderful example of the corporate conservative media, as you might claim, misinforming or under-informing the public.  You honestly believe that every Western nation is “successfully” offering Medicare type of health-care.

First, you completely dismissed the $68 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities of our own Medicare system and how we’re to pay for that.  Why?

Second, if so successful, why is Germany, France, Britain and Canada all attempting to introduce market forced into their respective government run health-care systems in order to drive prices lower?  Why are both Canada and Britain openly talking about the looming catastrophes in regards to the costs of their own respective health-care systems.  Successful you say?  Which news outlet led you to believe this?  Which group in Washington failed to fully inform you of the costs of such systems?  Or the $68 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities in our own system?

I wholeheartedly agree that the insurance and pharmaceutical industries are in need of serious reform, however, why are the parasites only in those industries but not in government itself?

Common sense:  Reform how we handle Medicare ($68 TRILLION) before making it roughly 70% larger.

-

Where I live there was one private MRI company offering it’s services for $475.00 per.  Today, three years later, there are three privately owned and operated companies offering the same services, however the price has dropped to $175.00.  Might there be a lesson in this?

May we address the $68 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities in our Medicare system before you demand we enlarge that system?

Medicare for all sounds great.  It sounds wonderful.  Now let us deal with the realities of such systems.  Let us know full well that Germany has a top tax rate of 70% in order to pay for it’s “successful” health-care.  Are you willing to give the U.S. government $.70 of every $1.00 you work for?

I suggest we leave the Fox assessment where it is then until you can produce one of these “100 examples for every Fox lie” from the MSM.  We’ve finally reached a position of circularity.  It’s a pity but not an unusual outcome.

Some form of Medicare for All is successfully supported by every other Western democracy.  I’d suggest that if it can’t be made to work in the American case (where economies of scale would appear to make it even easier) that there are a few parasites in the system.

As for the Chinese, I wouldn’t support the currently proposed Healthcare reform either.  As I understand the current proposals (and, no, I haven’t read them either!), they make it illegal not to buy insurance from a private firm and promise to subisidise all those who really really can’t afford it.  Sounds to me like a tax of indeterminate size (but very large and regressive) which instead of going to a central pool will go to a number of large for-profit companies who have a history of overpaying their senior employees wildly and denying the care they are supposed to fund.  Meanwhile, as poverty rates climb and climb (which I fear they will - helped in no small way by this massive “tax” increase on the near poor) the drain on taxpayer (or borrowed) funds will grow.  I wouldn’t bet on the country being able to repay either.

Remove the insurance parasites and the number might start to add up better.  Work on the pharmaceuticals next and who knows!

I second DBM’s opinion, and repeat it:

The difference with Fox is that on the one hand they laud and cheerlead for conservative causes and commentators using both true and untrue material, and on the other hand they consistently attack not-conservative-enough positions with both argument and lies.  This is different from selective reporting, it is “opinion” supported by half-truths and clear lies.  I find it hard to believe that the commentators on Fox believe what they’re saying themselves ... they can’t be dumb enough to believe it while being smart enough to read a teleprompter.
***************************************

I believe most mainstream media lacking but only Fox presents editorial opinion as straight news reportage.

A few things.  Again, for every criticism you have for FOX I have for the rest of the media.  You see, I actually see no differences in the reporting at all.  The only difference I see is that FOX is conservative while most of the rest are not.  Every criticism you have I too believe the same.  You seem somewhat miffed because the mainstream media is not pushing your agenda enough.  I’m sorry but I do not see a conservative slant in the bulk of the media. No way!  Interesting how perceptions differ depending on one’s starting point, yes?

Medicare for all.

Here’s a bit of honesty you almost never see in the media.  Do you realize that Medicare holds unfunded liabilities to the tune of SIXTY-EIGHT TRILLION dollars?  How in the world can we ever pay for that?  And how can Medicare be held up as a success?  It’s bankruptcy waiting to happen.  And if the U.S. fails the entire globe fails.  The number is so astronomical I have an extremely difficult time wrapping my mind around it.

Honestly. Did you know this fact and, I ask sincerely, how will we pay for that?

Also are you aware that during President Obama’s visit last week the Chinese flatly refused to finance the his health care proposals?  Essentially America’s banker said no.  It’s unsound and, frankly, you cannot afford it and neither can we. <—That bit of news played for one day.  Now POOF, all gone.

If the bulk of the media is controlled by conservative corporate America why are these facts not played on the news every day, every hour, 24/7?

But I don’t see the mainstream media as representative of any shadow of a progressive position.  In usually subtler ways than Fox the mainstream media takes very corporate views.  They are driven by access, advertising dollars and pack mentality.  There is outstanding journalism out there but it is swamped by mainstream views which, for instance, ignore Medicare-for-All as a potential health reform.  Who report what politicians say without adding context or identifying inconsistencies.  And who ask “How much?” about War instead of “What for?”.

The difference with Fox is that on the one hand they laud and cheerlead for conservative causes and commentators using both true and untrue material, and on the other hand they consistently attack not-conservative-enough positions with both argument and lies.  This is different from selective reporting, it is “opinion” supported by half-truths and clear lies.  I find it hard to believe that the commentators on Fox believe what they’re saying themselves ... they can’t be dumb enough to believe it while being smart enough to read a teleprompter.

What people like you seem to fail to see is that the conservative establishment is not there to represent this slim majority of “conservative” believers you think is out there.  They are there for their own benefit and use crumbs or promises regarding moral and religious issues to keep people voting for them.  That is, when they’re not playing their trump card: Fear.  Fear of foreign powers, fear of immigrants, fear of terrorism, fear of minorities, fear of totalitarian conspiracies.  These two themes, moral/religious issues and Fear are prime fodder for Fox and most of the mainstream media as well.

I don’t hate Fox at all ... I keep it right next to the Comedy Channel because, whlie they are doing similar work to the rest of the media in supporting the real establishment, they are so blatantly one-sided politically that they are genuinely funny ... but in the same way as one of those predatory Faux-Evangelist channels.  That people believe their schtick is worrying - I feel sorry for people so completely duped.  As if there really was the stark difference between the two political parties that Fox would have you believe.  I only wish it was true!

DBM,

A happy Thanks Giving to you and all who surround you.

I have read your thoughts very carefully and keep coming to the same conclusions.  FOX News does indeed stand out from most of the rest.  But I still feel that FOX’s reporting content stands out for you for a single reason.  FOX is the only television network which is conservative.  FOX is universally hated, truly hated, amongst the progressive minded.

Of all the things you find offensive in FOX, I believe, I can literally give you hundreds of like minded reporting styles and content from all the rest.  The real differences, and the reason I believe you cannot see it, is because you largely agree with the rest.  You find little that offends you.  Very little jumps out as egregious in the manner FOX News’ style and content is egregious to you.

All I can do is repeat myself.  If you ask any individual that leans toward the conservative side they will point at and take um-bridge with the bulk of the media.  Exactly as you do with FOX.  That should stand out and mean something to you. 

There are strong reasons why half the country sees it and you do not.  To you the so-called “main stream media” is just that.  Main stream.  And FOX stands out.  The criticisms and, yes, unhinged conspiracies directed toward the current president stand out to you.  On the other hand you firmly believe the bulk of the criticism and unhinged conspiracies directed toward Bush.  Therefor, it’s all justified.

Allow me to say this again.  It should mean something to you that half the country will disagree with you about the news media.  The same goes for much of the globe, however, you have come to believe the hatred for Bush is universal.  Why?  Because you saw and read it in the bulk of the media.

Have a great day!  I enjoy the dialog.  We’ll be in touch, I’m sure.

Hmmm ... to complicate matters, the update below was in response to yours starting “Busy day ...”; I have problems connecting for a while there and didn’t see you other posts until afterwards.

I must say that you seem more keen to pick apart my comments seeking to identify bias and predjudice than in addressing the conclusions I am drawing.  Not to nitpick too much about that but when I sketched two positive PR stories for the candidates in the last election, it is not the content of those sketches that is the point but that they both had carefully crafted stories intended to appeal to voters.  The point is that their policies seem to be so similar as to be nearly identical and, not coincidentally in line with what benefits large political donors.

I made the second point that this catering to large political donors is easier for Republicans who position themselves as the party of business while the Democrats have to be more duplicitous but manage to arrive at the same place.

Almost as an aside, I would say that Obama has made improvements in the area of Diplomacy.  The rest of the world may no longer consider the U.S. the biggest threat to the world (ahead of terrorism or any other country) as polled during the Bush years—though I have not heard otherwise yet.  Whether that can be turned to the U.S.‘s advantage at some stage is to be seen but it must be better to have more friends and allies.  I hesitate to add this paragraph because you are liable to focus on it but it would be unfair to say that their policies are identical without adding that Obama does have this relative strength.

The upshot of this is to say that if a media outlet is reporting news then they would have to see the two administrations in roughly the same light based on their actions.  There has certainly been some “hope” around the Obama administration where most outlets had given up on the Bush crew (including many on Fox News).  Fox, however, has reported on the Obama administration as if Stalin and Hitler had just be re-incarnate.  They have reported, without qualification for the most part, that he is a muslim (and presumably terrorist plant), that he was not born in the U.S.A. and that he is not, therefore, a legitimate president.  Bush got a lot of stick about not being a legitimate president because he failed to win the election clearly (whatever you think of the ensuing court decision) ... that is, by comparison, a reasonable discussion point as opposed to “show me your birth certificate ... again ... no the longer one ... no not a copy ...”.

THAT is my point!  All new presidents get a honeymoon period.  After the furor over the election shenanigans died down in 2001, Bush had a pretty good ride and the nation was happy to rally behind him after the 9/11 attacks.  There was no media outlet pushing baseless lies as news undermining his legitimacy and comparing him to Hitler or Mussolini.  This far exceeds the level of complaining that a politician only delivers speeches as set pieces (and I believe Bush II gave fewer press conferences than any other president in the TV era - he wasn’t good at them).  Fox is unique and deserves to be seen as such.

P.S. It is never my intent to belittle “more than half the nation” ... but if I believe that they have been fooled or are just plain wrong - they’d still be wrong even if it was 100% of the nation!

Thanks again for you thoughtful reply ... I am probably less grumpy today than I have been for a week now too!!

You’ve asked me quite a few direct questions and I’ll answer them specifically.  Then perhaps you can respond to the broader points I was trying to make.

A key difference between “calling out” a domestic news for bias, misleading reporting and outright lying on the one hand and labelling other countries “Evil” is, as I said, that the President is a diplomat.  Obama may have made PR error by allowing his spokemen to antagonise (and provide publicity to) an avowed political opponent.  What Bush did was really dumb diplomacy.  Diplomacy is a critical part of the job ...

Why would I think Bush is a mass murderer for inflicting the Iraq War on the world?  I guess you genuinely believe that he had the solid evidence he said he did of WMD in Iraq, I don’t.  I guess you believe that he thought it was worth a war to relieve Iraqis from Saddam’s tyranny, I don’t.  I guess you believe that he saw the establishment of democracy in Iraq as worth the cost of the war, I don’t.  I guess you don’t believe that he initiated the war to furhther the interests of multinational oil companies, I’m not sure but it’s more plausible than the other excuses given.  So, my reasoning is simple.  Starting a war under false pretences should be treason; it is certainly a war crime and in this case resulted in the destruction of millions of lives.  In that respect it makes Bush a mass murderer.

On the criticism of presidents:  There is a world of difference in saying that the Bush administration lied about WMD and torture given that there is credible evidence (to be acknowledged or refuted) as opposed to saying that Obama was born in Kenya and is a Muslim.  One is a very serious criticism based on evidence, the other is muck-raking with no basis in fact.  If I was saying that Bush was a chimpanzee because someone created a gif morphing his face into one then we’d be on the same level!

Finally on Roberts’ supreme court record:  I’m not saying that there are “good guys” I support as opposed to “bad guys”.  My assumption is that anything which gets to the Supreme Court must have legal ambiguities which need to adjudicated by the most senior jurists in the land.  I have heard from multiple sources that Roberts’ record is 100% in favour of established power (big over small, powerful over weak and corporate over individual) which seems pretty unlikely on a probability basis given that all the cases must be close calls or they would have been decided in a lower court.  That may be wrong and you say you’ve been reading his opinions, so I thought you must know of one.  I’m always interested in seeing widely accepted assertions disproven.  Assertions of “100%” anything should be the easiest of all.

DBM,

I would be willing to test my perceptions of the media by making a prediction.  I’ll let you be the judge.  Even Manchild can play.

Next week President Obama will give a major address at West Point concerning Afghanistan.  I will predict that few in the corporate conservative media will run a piece or give voice to the critics claiming the president will only give such speeches at a military facility with a captive audience unable to protest.

If anyone on FOX News makes the charge it will be the democrat hating Sean Hannity.  Perhaps a few columnists too will regurgitate the same charge.  Nonetheless it will be very few.

News outlets such as NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN, the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, the Miami Herald, Boston Globe and USAToday will not report the same as they had with President Bush.

DBM,

First, I wish to stress that nothing below comes from a desire to defend the previous president.  I’ll simply respond to some items you obviously feel strongly about.

In your first post this morning you start with a comparison of political ideologies.  You end the first paragraph with how you found Mr. Obama held “a more complex view of the world after 8 years of ridiculously childish us-vs-them, good-vs-evil (sic) attitudes.’  ‘I find that thinking annoying in a bar” and “enormously dangerous.”

You appear quick and willing to dismiss and completely belittle fully one half of the United States.  The agenda of the last president was decided in his second term.  One half of the nation agreed with the Bush Administration years after the war was in progress.

Your first paragraph was not about Mr. Obama.  It was about you and what you believe in.  And how candidate Obama agreed with you (the complex over the simpletons).  There’s certainly no problem with you choosing one way of seeing the world over another.  Not one bit.  But you clearly dislike and seem predisposed to thoroughly belittling all those you mentioned this morning.  All very different people but for their honest and passionate disagreement with you and President Obama.  -Don’t let anyone forget that fully half the nation disagrees with you.

-

“Now Obama, as presented, had an attractive background for some people.  He was a major success story…. went to Harvard, did very well there and went to work with the disadvantaged as a “community organiser”.  He is a great orator and his speeches on such things as race were very well received.  Bush, as presented in 1999 and 2000, had an attractive background for some people.  Son of a very rich and successful man,”

I do not wish to take anything away from the president.  He has many genuine accomplishments behind him.  But this paragraph is not about how the two candidates were marketed at all.  Again it’s how you percieved the candidates.  Senator Obama was not a major success.  He is now, however!

President Bush was not a two term governor of a large populous state, son of a former president and vice President. Bush was not on a first name basis with several global leaders before entering the race for president.  The democratic Speaker of the Texas House never described Governor Bush as “a man fully committed and able to work on a bipartisan basis” for six years.  No.  He was, very simply, the Son of a very rich and successful man.  - Dismissive to say the least. But Senator Obama was highly successful?

Have you not repeatedly opined that it’s the kooks, the uneducated and the ignorant who failed to see the world as you will and vote for Senator Obama?  It wasn’t one half the nation.

These things lead me to ask if, perhaps, you may be predisposed to genuinely disliking republicans or conservatives.  I think it a fair question.

-

You said much in your post this morning.  I think I can only repeat how we come to our conclusions in much different ways.

DBM,

Busy day (thank God) and still have little time to fully explain my last comments.  I did, however, read your first post twice.  In the few minutes I have let me try illustrating a point. 

You wrote at some length in your last post regarding Bush’s - you’re either with us or with the terrorists stand.  Tell me; how does that differ from a president whose approach to critiques of his administration is to “call ‘em out” to fight?

Both statements were made in the same vane.  In both statements the U.S. President was speaking to a perceived foe.  Not to allies or supporters.  Both presidents were taking a stand for their respective goals.

President Bush was speaking very specifically to perceived global foes.  President Obama was very specifically speaking to his own perceived enemies but, for domestic consumption.

Both men essentially said the same things.  Why do you support one but not the other?  Why do you perceive one as unhelpful and childish yet, today, it’s suddenly brilliant?

On the subject of criticism of an administration?

“What I don’t like is the vacuous “who’s going to win?” coverage which carefully avoids forcing the candidates to actually expose policy agendas (while going on at length about “hidden agendas”, “socialist agendas”, “fascist agendas” ... but never defining them in any way).  I suspect that any reporters who didn’t follow this line would lose access to the candidate and eventually their jobs.”

I sincerely agree with you on this. But, again, why are your examples of criticisms vacuous and disturbing yet, at the same time, you give full weight and support to the notion that President Bush is a mass murderer and lied about Saddam Hussein after President Clinton, Vice President Gore, Madeline Albright, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle and Edward Kennedy made the very same claims YEARS before Bush uttered a word of it?

The criticisms of President Obama are common and meaningless next to your criticisms of President Bush.  And I do not believe you can prove your charges against Bush. Just as you believe in the vacuous criticisms of Obama - in which I largely agree with you.

Justice Roberts:

It’s not as easy you proffer. If you can choose and read an opinion by the Justice we could discuss the legal merits of his argument.  It’s common, and incorrect in my opinion, to make the Roberts opinions about the good guys (that you support) against the bad guys (who you do not support).

If I may?  Perhaps we could look at Justice Roberts’ stand on gay rights.

DBM, November 25 at 6:12 pm

I think you make a grave mistake in thinking that this person seeks to debate with honesty or integrity.

I won’t go on too much here as there has been little opportunity to respond to my last updates.  The initial response puzzles me a bit.  I’ve re-read what I wrote and I struggle to see the bias in it that you do.  I was not being painstakingly balanced but when I read it I see about the same amount of text devoted to a positive PR vision of the two most recent candidates as promoted by the PR machines and through the media.  I honestly spoke about my preference for Obama as he appears to have one very good characteristic which most people don’t argue with:  He is smart and capable.

My complaint here is about the media not the Republicans.  This whole thread is about the media right?  What I don’t like is the vacuous “who’s going to win?” coverage which carefully avoids forcing the candidates to actually expose policy agendas (while going on at length about “hidden agendas”, “socialist agendas”, “fascist agendas” ... but never defining them in any way).  I suspect that any reporters who didn’t follow this line would lose access to the candidate and eventually their jobs. 

What I then said was that the policies of both parties are essentially the same:  Full support for big money and vested interests.  I made the point, obvious I thought, that this is easier for a Republican as this is the party of business but that the Democrats seem to be playing a duplicitous game where they talk like the party of the people (and there are genuine progressive individuals) but then they govern almost exactly like the Republicans after a faux struggle to achieve their stated aims.

You then turn around and say “you are predisposed to thinking unkindly toward republicans” ... didn’t I just say that the Republicans are governing for their base while the Democrats are pretending to represent their base but eventually capitulating to a position which just happens to be in line with their funders?  Which is worse??

Your concern appears to be with the characterisation of the Bush world view as childish.  I can only quote the great man himself on the points I mentioned
    us-vs-them:  “You’re either with us or against us”  when trying to enlist a “coalition of the willing” - neutrality is a crime?
    good-vs-evil:  “We are confronted by an axis-of-evil ...” when describing Iran, Iraq and North Korea - great opening diplomatic position
    I’ve-never-been-wrong:  http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0414-01.htm - this resonated around the world in 2004 where a vast majority of people saw little but mistakes
Amongst the other responsibilities of a president is diplomacy.  In each case, these statements were massive diplomatic blunders taking away 90% of the country’s ability to negotiate and manoeuvre.  They are, on their face, childishly appealing world simplifying statements.

As for Roberts ... you may well be right.  But since the charge is that Roberts has been 100% consistent, and you’ve read his opinions, all you need to do to refute it is to give one example of a decision at odds with the “big against small, powerful against weak, corporate against individual” perfect record.  Not the words in the opinion saying that the small, weak and individual have merit ... a decision in the favour of small, weak and/or individual.  Seems like a simple argument to end!

To continue to argue with one who lies about research he never undertook seems a senseless waste of time:

http://reason.com/blog/2009/05/19/judging-chief-justice-roberts
*******************

Go and commit an anatomically impossible task upon yourself. You are nothing more, and certainly nothing less than a little clown, so full of yourself that you fail to note that most everything thinks you full of something else.

Manchild,

Do you hold an opinion of your own or will you always wait to see what other like minded individuals tell you what to think and say?  Regurgitating an-others opinion does not make a thing, as you would call it, “truth”. 

Try doing some real research at times. READ Justice Roberts opinions yourself and, only then, will you be somewhat qualified to take a position.

Stop being a follower and a simple parrot.

For DBM,

To continue to argue with one who lies about research he never undertook seems a senseless waste of time:

http://reason.com/blog/2009/05/19/judging-chief-justice-roberts

Judging Chief Justice Roberts

Damon W. Root | May 19, 2009

Jeffrey Toobin has a long profile of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in the latest New Yorker. There’s plenty to disagree with in Toobin’s characterizations of Roberts and his fellow justices, but this passage gets a few things right:

  The kind of humility that Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party.

It’s hard to imagine Roberts joining Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent in the medical marijuana case Gonzales v. Raich, for instance, where Thomas stayed true to his professed federalist principles (unlike Justice Antonin Scalia, who sided with expansive federal power). And as Radley Balko observed last year:

  [Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito] aren’t libertarian judges. They’re judges who defer to police and prosecutors on criminal justice issues, who would put broad restrictions on your ability to sue government agents who have wronged you, and who embrace the Unitary Executive, essentially the belief that when it comes to foreign policy and national security (and a number of other issues), the president’s powers are unlimited, absolute, and unchecked by either Congress or the courts. That isn’t an exaggeration.

DBM,,

Here is a comment you made from another post. - “their genuine policy agenda is just like Roberts voting history: big against small, powerful against weak, corporate against individual.”

Where does this jaded and dark perception you hold against republicans or conservatives come from?  I am 100% certain that if you look up Justice Roberts decisions you’ll not find any of this. 

I have researched Justice Roberts.  None of what you opined on is actually present in his history.  To be blunt; I believe you are allowing your own perceptions to drive your ideas on a republican/conservative - Justice Roberts.

DBM,

You’ve written a great deal.  Not sure where to begin.

First, I hope your recovery is miraculously speedy.  The injury appears painful.

I have little time right now, however, I’ll try through my day to respond with small snippets.

Is it safe to say you don’t like republicans?  Is it safe to say you are predisposed to thinking unkindly toward republicans?  That the (R) behind an individuals name allows for more than a few strikes against them from the word Go?

I ask these questions because it appears that you’re caught up in the media driven “Us vs Them”, over generalized, over characterized, images and perceptions that keep us divided and, simultaneously, lines the pockets of the entertainment/news industry (blood, bombs and controversy sell).

Here’s the thing.  When I go about my day I almost never witness such divisions and political bigotry.  I see democrats/republicans/independents working side by side with nary a thought about party affiliation.  The places I see this behavior is in Washington, the “news” media and now the internet.  But it’s important to remind ourselves that not one of those venues are actually real.

I had no such assurance!  ... but am over the worst (although I know initial stages of rehab will be unpleasant too). Thanks.

Check out http://chronicle.com/article/Education-Level-Linked-to/43433/.  I thought that was pretty well known.  It’s interesting, though, given that I understand the Democrats have traditionally been the party of the working class.  Also, those with higher education levels often ARE the moneyed interests of whom I speak.  I think this is indicative of the fact that America now has one party completely dedicated to business interests and big money (the Democrats) and another who’s main objective seems to be providing such whackjob alternatives that people will vote against their own self-interest for a big money serving Democrat.    Just an opinion!!

DBM, November 24 at 7:16 pm

Rather than try to understand your bias about “under educated Republicans” or “democratic media” ,reporters perhaps, but those who control the news certainly not, I would only say that I hope your recovery is a speedy and pain free one…

I had knee surgery about twelve years ago, after being assured that it would be pain free I woke up the next day with a knee the size of a football and rather filled with pain. I spoke to the doctor saying, “I thought you said this would be pain free”. His response,” I didnt feel a thing”.....

PART III
I’ve injured my knee pretty badly (similar to this injury http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsCPE96gdK0) ... had surgery last week the day after I did it.  At the risk of exposing too much in a public forum, you might be interested in my experience with the health industry:

  *  I could have taken a free ambulance to the nearest hospital but elected to have my team-mates drive me to a hospital closer to home as I was across town.

  *  The hospital I chose was private and Emergency cost me $230.  I could have gone to the nearby public hospital but they get busy with sports injuries on weekends and I’d had minor surgery on my other knee a few months ago in the private hospital.

  *  The hospital stay cost about $2500 a day but was covered entirely by my medical insurance.  If I had gone to the public hospital it would have been substantially less or free with or without insurance (although I would have had to share a room rather than have one to myself).

  *  The surgeon’s bill hasn’t come through yet, but I’m expecting about $5,000 which will be covered by Medicare (I’m in my 40’s) with a “gap” of about $1,000 most of which will come from me rather than insurance.

  *  The anesthesist will charge about $3,000 which will incorrectly covered by Medicare (due to a schedule rate anomaly) at only $1,500 or so and I’ll end up paying about half the rest after insurance.

So, not perfect and not cheap.  But I don’t have to mortgage the house and I could have had a very similar experience in a public hospital for about the same outlay or less.  In last country I lived in, I would have been much better off.  I had a serious elbow injury many years ago there and had free everything plus 80% of my salary paid while I recuperated (my employer made up the difference which is considered a reasonable commitment to employees in need).  The coverage for accidents there is topflight.  Strangely, when the legislation was put in place they chose not to cover illness the same way out of fear that it could cost too much.  Despite decades of evidence that the accident side is more efficient and provides vastly more benefits, they’ve not been able to muster the political will to make it universal. (The insurance industry has influence everywhere!)

PART II
Now Obama, as presented, had an attractive background for some people.  He was a major success story.  Child of a single mother who went to Harvard, did very well there and went to work with the disadvantaged as a “community organiser”.  He is a great orator and his speeches on such things as race were very well received.  Bush, as presented in 1999 and 2000, had an attractive background for some people.  Son of a very rich and successful man, he preferred the solitude and ruggedness of a rural ranch.  He had overcome failures and turned his life around be taking to fundamentalist Christianity with fervor and he didn’t present as someone who thought he was better than anyone else.

Do those PR stories sound about right to you?  I believe that it was on this sort of thinking that these men were elected.  There is nothing in either image that implies any particular agenda but if they did that they risk losing some of the electorate ... hence no-one gets a hint.  IMHO there is a lot of made up crap in both life stories.  I think Obama has been a very ambitious man for a long time and a political player on multiple levels.  I think Bush bought the ranch in Crawford in about 1998 or 99 solely as a prop for this bullshit cowboy image.  His sense of entitlement and arrogance make him one of the last people you’d really enjoy a beer with.

So with no facts about agendas or policies on the table what do the men do?  Well, Bush was openly in line with big money interests and went hell-for-leather.  Obama seems to be less openly, but just as strongly, in line with big money interests and has been working the system through delay and “reaching-across-the-aisle” (in a way Bush never even pretended to do) so that the outcomes sound progressivish but are ultimately in line with big money interests.  They have to do this because that is how those attractive PR stories get spread ... with mountains of money.

The “lack of vetting of Obama” (a conservative talking point during the election) ... really?  What did you know about Bush in 1999?  I thought he was a dweeb because he acted like a dweeb.  I had no idea what his capabilities were nor his political agenda.  I think that’s been the norm for decades in presidential elections.

PART I
Let’s be clear that neither of us is rabidly pro-Bush or pro-Obama.  This is about political positions and not individuals although Obama has disappointed me a lot more than Bush in that I thought Bush was an unqualified dweeb before he was elected.  I was amazed in fact that Bush was able to re-enforce that initial assessment with almost every speech, decision or appointment.  The reasons people have been excited about Obama are no doubt myriad and personal but include the fact that he is telegenic, urbane and of mixed race.  In my case, I have been impressed by the fact that he appears smarter and more capable than most of the rest of us.  Call me elitist but I want the most powerful man in the world to be way way above average.  The other critical thing that impressed me about Obama, in contrast to Bush and McCain/Palin (remembering that McCain was more likely than most candidates to have to hand over to the VP due to death or ill-health), was that he appeared to have a more complex view of the world after 8 years of ridiculously childish us-vs-them, good-vs-evil, I’ve-never-ever-been-wrong attitudes.  I find that thinking annoying in a bar.  In the President, it is enormously dangerous.  The breeze you felt after that election was the collective exhaling of most of the world as relief that, barring economic crisis, insane war carnage, the creation of millions of committed enemies and an acceleration of the growing gap between rich and poor, the world had survived.

Now, 80% of the media are Democrats.  Yes, that is true.  I believe that if you were to control for education levels you might find that the correlation was much weaker.  The media tend to be well educated and the well-educated tend to be Democrat more than Republican.  But look at what they report on ... you’ve said that they never held back in reporting criticism of Bush.  I’ve said that they have been remiss in reporting such tripe as the Birther rubbish, Obama Muslim faith (at the same time as his domination by the ideas of the pastor who’s church he’s attended for 20 years!) without pointing out the lack of factual basis for these attacks.  The point is that the press report at a superficial horse-race level.  There is scant attention paid to positions and agendas not least because the candidates and politician try not to give them anything to go on ... it’s all about PR!

DBM,

The week of Nov. 2, 2008 I watched as Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose wondered to themselves who American’s had just elected to the highest office in the United States.  Each wondered aloud what his foreign policy agenda was.  What books he’s read.  Whether or not, and I quote, “given his voting record, would he have the ability to reach across the isle”?  Did he posses the abilities, know-how and talent to be effective with the Congress?  Both men openly admitted they had not a clue how Mr. Obama would governor or, more importantly, exactly what his priorities would be.

These two media icons, by no means favorable to a “conservative” agenda, each having a well trained and able staff of producers and researchers, each with tremendous media resources, had no clue on how Mr. Obama felt, thought, or would govern.

Such as it was in the 2008 election.  The so-called “news media” was over-the-top in Obama’s corner.  Why, I ask?  Was it because he’s a black man?  A novelty?  Was it due to his politics leaning toward the left?  Was he simply a terrific draw or a “get” for the elite media? 

Very few asked Obama the tough questions that are always asked in such monumental campaigns.  Very few actually expended their resources to vet this individual.  Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko were very real issues but, almost completely ignored after the initial “news report”.  It’s never been done this way in all of American history!  Keeping in mind that half the nation, as usual, voted for the other guy, I’ve never seen anything like it.  Nothing warranted the slobbering praise or ham handed way the news media changed how we elect a president.

-

I do like the president on an personal level.  I do not believe he’s a Muslim and I do believe he was born in the United States.  I have and will continue to argue against the charge of Obama being an Marxist. It’s a bogus charge until it’s proven that he, very specifically, follows the teachings and beliefs of Karl Marx.

With that said; I see a man in office, arguably the most powerful office on the globe, that was not only not qualified to hold such an office but, a man the media refused to properly vet. 

President Obama is the least vetted politician in all of American History.  And it’s not due to the news media being “corporate conservative”.  No way!

DBM,

May I ask what ails you?  All my best wishes and strength go out to you.

-

We do go about reaching our conclusions in much different ways. For example: I don’t give corporate America the same level of influence you afford it.  I’m not denying that influence, just nothing close to the level you believe in. 

I believe I can show that the electorate is much smarter, paying a good deal more attention, and has a greater effect on legislation and elected officials than you appear to believe.

I also believe you may be ignoring something I’ve referenced here in this thread.  The fact that 80% of journalists and editors are self proclaimed democrats and, how that is reflected in the bulk of elite media reporting.  The notion you and others hold that the media was kind to,  or even favored, George W. Bush leaves me stymied every time I hear it.  I never saw anything of the kind.  I saw the bulk of the “news media” - CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, the New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Times, the Miami Herald, the Boston Herald et al, gave every Bush detractor every opportunity to voice their criticisms and off the wall conspiracy theories (I think it takes great nerve to lambaste Fox for it’s clear bias when every other news agency leans left).

I also can’t wrap my mind around the notion that there’s anyone on the entire globe that does not fully understand how the bulk of the media was TREMENDOUSLY and over-the-top favorable to Mr. Obama during the campaign and, that that favorable coverage continues today.  I honestly and sincerely can’t imagine any fair minded individual not seeing this so clearly.  - More on this in an follow-up post.

I still believe you and others can’t stand FOX News due to a single reason. Fox is the only network not towing, or at the least giving weight to, the “progressive” agenda.

That last comment should have been associated with your comment that:

“the majority of Americans (70% according to Keith) are in favor of “universal health car”. <—this is a blatant lie.”

We both understand that polls can be cooked ... perhaps we disagree about what makes common sense regarding healthcare.

I’ll be getting progressively well for a long time thanks!

Were Beck and his foil talking about current legislation or the “progressive position” on funding abortions?
There were no Progressives in the discussion so I suspect a “progressive position” was never mooted.  There was, however, a whole of setting up easily toppled progressive positions and then knocking down the soft balls ... very impressive debate!  No, they didn’t say they were talking about proposed legislation, but then they kept on referring to it as “Obama’s Health Care plans” which I believe have not be distributed if they’ve ever been written in detail.  No, this was just a matter of mentioning the legislation and then the easily refuted position (“sticking a spike into the head of and 8 1/2 month fetus”) in the same breath.  You know, like saying “America has been attacked by its enemies, Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, so something must be done…”.  The only one who actually said Hussein was connected to 9/11 was Cheney (C’mon you chickenshits, this is how you lie!), the rest of them just mentioned the two in tandem in every other sentence.  I know we disagree on this point, but I’ve never seen anything to convince me that Saddam wouldn’t have had more old times to discuss with George HW Bush than with Osama Bin Laden.

In your second update you say something which makes me despair!  Clearly I haven’t made any impact or maybe we’ll just have to disagree on this one too!  You say:
“The president could get his agenda passed yesterday if the majority of constituents of his own party supported his agenda. No?”
Well, it is entirely possible that he is doing just that.  Only his agenda is nothing like what the progressives who elected him hoped he had in mind.  Hopefully that assessment will prove too negative in time.  We’ll see.  But the real issue there is with the latter part of your assumption that the support of a majority of the President’s constituency would have any impact on getting an agenda enacted.  I’d go so far as to say that if a majority of the electorate as a whole support an agenda it will still struggle unless Democracy is working well.  Sadly, it is not. 

The only pressure politicians feel from the electorate is being voted out.  Elections are not won or lost on issues or agendas, they are won and lost on PR.  Very very expensive PR.  Those that can provide the funding for that very very expensive PR are the ones who get listened to.  Bush, and the “Right” in general have it fairly easy in that their stated agenda is in synch with corporate desires.  He can openly back that agenda and watch as the large corporate media get right on board behind him.  Obama (if he is who we hoped he is), and what passes for the political “Left” in America have a much tougher position.  They have to pretend to support an agenda which is not in line with corporate interests but get forced into bending around to their political funders’ desires anyway.  That’s a much trickier dance.

So why can’t Obama get something clearly supported by the majority of constituents of his own party passed?  Because it is not in the interests of his political donors.

BTW - “... if the majority of constituents of his own party supported his agenda…”  I know we’ll disagree on this but I think a valid way to posit the question is:

“Which of these two options do you prefer:

a)  A potentially inept government bureaucrat tasked with making healthcare available to you (but who might screw up)
or
b)  A very capable corporate bureaucrat tasked with screwing you out of any healthcare due to you (who is less likely to screw up)?”

Given this question in stark terms most people would understand and identify with, I expect that a clear majority of the total electorate would support universal healthcare!

DBM,

Watching the evening news I’m reminded of an important, and all too ignored, point in the elite “mainstream” media.

The president enjoys total party control of the House and the Senate and, still, he’s unable to pass the bulk of his domestic policy agenda.  Particularly his flavor of health-care reform.

It’s not about Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or Hannity and O’Riely.  It’s not about the republicans in office today.  The president could get his agenda passed yesterday if the majority of constituents of his own party supported his agenda. No?

Where do you see the majority supporting his agenda?

Welcome back, DBM. Are you well again?

First let me say that I rarely watch Glenn Beck’s television program. From his radio show, however, I think his point on abortion isn’t in regards to current “open to the public” legislation but, rather, about the legions of progressives who are upset over federally funded abortions exclusion from current legislation.

Are you certain Beck was discussing current proposed legislation? Or was he speaking in regards to the “progressive” position on funding abortions?

-

“American citizens poll in favour of publically funded health care”

-When polling Americans about healthcare, there are ways to get two very different answers to the same question. If you ask people “should everyone be required to have healthcare?” the answer comes back 67% yes, 27% no. But, when the question is rephrased to “should we require everybody to carry insurance, or face a federal penalty?” it flips and 64% say no, and 28% yes.

According to the latest Rasmussen poll only 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.

DBM- Are you perhaps watching Keith Olbermann? The reason I ask is this: Olbermann loves to report that the majority of Americans (70% according to Keith) are in favor of “universal health car”. <—this is a blatant lie.

The 70% figure comes from polling the generic question; “do you favor health care reform?” NOT the question of “do you favor government run or mandated (universal) healthcare. When asked about single payer, or universal healthcare, the numbers drop DRAMATICALLY.

There is no way MSNBC or Olbermann can read the poll numbers, especially the internals, and come up with the 70% figure. It’s simply impossible. It’s an outright lie!

-

The longer President Obama waits to make a decision on whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, the more voter support for that war appears to be ebbing away.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that U.S. voters are almost evenly divided now over whether it is possible for the United States to win the war in Afghanistan. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say yes that victory is still possible, but 36% disagree and say it is not. One-in-four voters (25%) are not sure.

DBM, November 23 at 6:26 am

Welcome back and I hope you have a speedy recovery.

I would warn you that watching Beck is a potentially dangerous thing as you might pop your stitches.

Ok,  I’m back sort of ... and with a some time to do things which I normally don’t have (I’m recovering from unexpected surgery).  So I thought I’d do something radical and do something on-topic.  I watched the Glenn Beck Show yesterday.

It was no special show, just an interview with a same-thinking author.  I’m sorry Go Right, I can watch a whole lot other news and talk discussions and not see nearly as many lies as came through in this small discussion.  I say “small” because, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I find Fox hard to watch with all the interruptions for station adverts, foreshadowing and thinly veiled product endorsements called “News Extra”.

But let’s keep to the observed facts.  The discussion was along the lines of “people see us as radical right wingers ... but that is only because the nature of public discussion has suddenly moved abruptly left so that mainstream ideas are labelled radical ... we are the mainstream and oh so under attack.”  Now, I’ve had a day to forget but let’s see what statements or innuendoes I can recall that were blatantly untrue:

  * “I’m not against Health Reform but I don’t see why I should be forced to pay through Federal tax dollars for abortions” ... in particular the case of a fetus of 8 and 1/2 months “being stabbed through the head with a spike” was described in gory detail. 
  (The lie:  Abortion is not covered in any of the reform proposals because they are seeking bipartisan approval and any Family Planning funding - let alone late term abortion - is not up for discussion.  Clearly, anyone only watching this source would think that they had to be against Health Reform to be against late term abortion.)

  * Glenn’s marvelous chalkboard talk showed that the “window of acceptable discussion” had moved over time from where it started a generation ago to some bizarre position most people don’t support.  His example was that Government Health Care used to cover “widows & orphans” leaving everyone else to work for what they get.  Now the acceptable position includes government support for anyone choosing not to have insurance, funding abortions and then Glenn grandiosely wrote in “ILLEGALS” in capital letters.
    (The lie:  Again this misrepresents the proposals for reform, none of which include support for any of these things).

  * The overall presumption that the American people have been left way to the right of acceptable policy options.
    (The lie:  American citizens poll in favour of publically funded health care, ending or at least extricating the U.S. from the Iraq and Afghan wars, applying rigorous oversight of the financial sector and greater gun control measures.  They also poll in favour of heavy restrictions on abortion and religious rights.  As the latter are sacrosanct current policy while the former are not even being considered, I fail to see how the conversation has moved left of the mainstream.

Hey, maybe I’ll do some more homework on another Fox Show, but I’ll record it so I can FFwd the infommercials.  What would you recommend?

Nice retort, Manchild…..LMAO

When substance is not available throw in the personal attacks…..LOL

It’s the ENTIRE reason you are the ONLY one on TruthDig I talk to as I do.

Go Right Young Man, November 17 at 11:19 am

It isnt my fault you are an idiot, stop blaming me. Your parents were obviously first cousins.

Manchild,

Try re-reading my post just days after Maj. Hasan gunned down a couple dozen people.

Now who’s being completely dishonest? LMAO…..

I ask this sincerely: Why do you go out of your way to appear to be an idiot? It’s useless to everyone!

Go Right Young Man, November 17 at 1:41 am #

The evidence I found two days after the Ft. Hood shootings was overwhelming.

**********************
Apparently so overwhelming that it cannot be shared with anyone…...

The evidence I found two days after the Ft. Hood shootings was overwhelming. Clearly Major Hasan was practicing an extremely radical, and deadly, form of fundamental Islam

Will Manchild finally admit he completely missed the mark on this one? Will he man-up and admit he knew little on the subject and, others, yes like myself, may know a great deal more about researching current events?

I doubt it. This is one very small individual.

DBM,

This is what conservatives see 365 days a year. We see it in all the elite media while the progressive set can’t stand, with true seething hatred, FOX News for it’s particular brand of bias. Fox News stands quite alone (80% of journalists and editors are self described democrats).

Most progressives fail to recognize the daily bias, I think, because they agree with it. To the progressive set this Newsweek cover simply represents “the truth”. Fully ignoring that nearly half the country will disagree.

-

Newsweek Photo of Palin Shows Media Bias and Sexism - David Brody, CBN

NOTE: TD won’t allow me to post a link to the Newsweek cover.—“Denied access”. “black listed item found”.

I’ve never had this happen before.

“It is rare, but not unheard of, for a president’s personal lawyer to become his White House counsel. Harriett Miers became counselor to then-President George W. Bush after having been his private lawyer. And Alberto Gonzales, another Bush counsel, had also advised Bush privately.”

Bauer to bring political edge to White House counsel’s office
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/13/AR2009111302143.html?hpid=topnews

Dunn is sooo pathetic here, attempting to co-opt Jon Stewart into the White House horse-puckey.

Anita Dunn Takes Parting Shot At Fox, Hannity And Beck
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/13/dunn-takes-parting-shot-a_n_357202.html

“Elsewhere in her remarks, Dunn acknowledged that her decision to go after Fox News was not an example of her “going rogue.” White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and perhaps even the president himself gave her the green light.”

It seems Manchild is upset that I failed to wait for Keith Olbermann to tell me what to think, how to feel or do my own research.

ardee, November 10 at 8:08 am #

Sane people await any proof of religion playing a part in this tragedy. Assholes jump at the chance to denigrate something they have no clue about.

“President Obama will give an interview to Fox News’ Major Garrett, Drudge reports.

“The interview will take place in China next week and comes just one day after it was reported that Obama Communications Director Anita Dunn, the so-called general in the administration’s war against Fox News, will be stepping down.”

Obama to give interview to Fox News
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/obama-to-give-interview-t_n_354457.html

@CT,

It seems Manchild is upset that I failed to wait for Keith Olbermann to tell me what to think, how to feel or do my own research.

In light of his own knowledge that he was 100% wrong concerning…LMAO…lol….wait….LMAO… wait….I’m sorry…LMAO…wait….the Taliban offer to hand bin Laden over to Bush…LMAO…he still maintains total ignorance.

It just doesn’t get any more idiotic than that. Or does it? We’ll see….LMAO

Go Right Young Man writes:
“The elite media is quite busy downplaying the Fort Hood shooter’s religion.”

ardee writes:
“Sane people await any proof of religion playing a part in this tragedy.”

What a difference a day makes! A few strategic intelligence leaks, and there it all is, and now the media won’t shut up about it—Dr. Hasan WARNED the military of “adverse events”, emailed all the wrong people, begged to leave the military ... and indeed the military was sending him to Afghanistan, where he could become an unremarked hero casualty.

Presumably it’s Obama’s Muslim past and parentage that make the media and the military so nasty-nice about it all, and so slow off the dime. (We probably can anticipate, meanwhile, that the Obamas will finally “find” a DC church to attend, long about next Sunday ... )

Meanwhile, if the hijacked Democrats get away with a medical-insurance draft, can a military draft be far in the future? Youngsters will do well to position themselves as converts to Islam, the better to achieve conscientious objector status when that happy day rolls around.

Manchild,

You never fail me…lol

You have, once again, missed the entire point. LMAO

Sane people await any proof of religion playing a part in this tragedy. Assholes jump at the chance to denigrate something they have no clue about.

@CT,

The elite media is quite busy downplaying the Fort Hood shooter’s religion. Just imagine if an O’Reilly, Beck or Goldberg book was found in his home or, God forbid, there was a talk station pre-set on his car radio or he once knew a guy who had a cousin who attended a tea party.  There would be endless, mindless, hourly speculation and convoluted banner headlines about [how] the evil right-wing is sowing hatred and inspiring death.

The elite are careful not to jump to any conclusions in this case, especially when they’re politically incorrect conclusions.  But they’d jump to conclusions, wouldn’t they, if a white guy with a crew cut and overalls from the rural south walked into a local NAACP office and shot up the place.  They’d conclude the guy was a racist.  And they’d almost certainly be right.  With the Fort Hood story there was sound reason to suspect the killer’s religion played a part in the massacre, and all we got was mind numbing drivel about how stressed out soldiers are these days.

Go Right Young Man, November 9 at 2:26 pm #

This schoolyard rift with you is great fun, Manchild.

My goodness, why do you so readily admit you approach this forum as a schoolchild? Not that you would have fooled anyone for very long anyway, but I appreciate the honest admission of childishness.

That you may very well be the only person in the western world who has “no knowledge” of the Taliban’s offer seems a foolish stance, especially when the search engines bring one chapter and verse on the subject.

I would not seek to keep you from your self incriminations…..

This schoolyard rift with you is great fun, Manchild. Your lack of understanding on how the world actually works makes it easy for me (too much Keith Olbermann, Michael Moore and Hugo Chavez envy is my guess). Too easy in fact. I’m sincerely beginning to feel ashamed of myself for so openly ridiculing the disadvantaged.

I would be genuinely impressed if you were able, just once, to refute anything I’ve written.

-

The Taliban offered to hand bin Laden over to Bush.. LMAO….LOL…..LOL…..LOL

I’m sorry I can’t help myself where you’re concerned. That one alone is gut splitting hilarious. I am absolutely convinced that you are now well aware of your mistake on that one but, you seem completely incapable of being adult enough to admit it…....LMAO

Please keep it coming. You’ve been terrific fun for me.

Go Right Young Man, November 9 at 9:48 am

If you are wondering whether I come at the behest of the RNC why not turn your head and ask?

Better yet, why not remove your head from your ass and post something of a political nature so we can all laugh and refute?

I’m still leaning toward the idea that Manchild may have been sent here at the behest of the RNC to make progressives appear small and bigoted.

I do not believe all progressives suffer the same inability to comprehend the written word. Most progressives hold the innate ability to differentiate between what is actually written vs the imagination.

It’s possible that Manchild is so full of hatred, so bigoted and self involved, so enthralled with his own self that he’s incapable of grasping others points of view.

I don’t hold enough information to know what ails this individual. Something is truly amiss.

@CT, November 8 at 6:32 pm
I said what I meant and meant what I sad. You both share a contempt for the truth and for those whose opinions differ from yoru own.

ardee writes [apparently responding to Go Right Young Man]:
“You and @CT both ... “

I dunno what the political particulars for Go Right Young Man may be, but ardee‘s assumption that anyone un-worshipful of Oblabla’s balls-free baloney is “right wing” is just kind of silly.

Obama, alas, is the one who’s “right wing”—and not only right wing, but a guy whose political life was launched by mobsters and corporate-kid “radicals” whose machinations did much to fold the social revolution of the sixties.

Obama’s an embarrassment inflicted on the Democrats by soldier-cult poseur John Kerry, the guy who threw the LAST election. That His henchman muzzle and nuzzle the media however they can is no surprise—it’s the Chicago Way.

bearing repetition I guess:

You and @CT both .....

You use the word “honesty” as if you had the faintest notion of its meaning. Considering that I have already posted links to the offer of the Taliban to deliver bin Laden I think you should immediately add ‘dis’ to your own self image concerning your own honesty.

I think, by the by, that I am considerably older than are you. I know I am rather far more honest. You do not seek debate, even with one as fair and evenhanded as DBM, who, I expect, will soon tire of your DIShonesty and leave the field to speak with far better than you. You seem to think that smarminess wins you points, typical right wing jackoff…..

Go Right Young Man writes:
“I am just now beginning to believe the charges I’ve been seeing repeatedly from political opponents. It does appear to me that the staff the president chose to be closest to him practice a form of the thuggish Chicago politik.”

Stalinism in the service of right-lite warm spit. At least Stalin won the war—something Oblabla’s not going to do.

DBM,

First I will say that I’ve enjoyed the discourse a good deal. I look forward to more in the future.

I’ve wanted to make one point over all others. The lies! Second to that is the matter of threat assessment.

You appear to genuinely be seeking an explanation as to why others do not see things as you do when it comes to the subject of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

I believe I can prove to any reasonable person that two (2) U.S. presidents, along with their entire respective national security apparatus, forcefully and passionately argued that Saddam Hussein was one of the highest national security priorities. That priority, I would argue, did not suddenly or miraculously diminish after Sept. 2001. - What could have or should have been done about that threat is another subject entirely.

It’s impossible to argue that two U.S. Presidents, from two political parties, spanning over a decade, argued the exact same claims but, only one lied.

Understanding this demands three things.

1. We must seek alternate explanations for “the lies”. Claiming, as many do, that “Bush lied” will not work when historians explain our present day.

2. We cannot claim two U.S. President’s, along with their national security staffs, lied to the world and not take great pains in proving the lies.

3. Why did Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Jay Rockefeller, Al Gore, Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others all claim Saddam Hussein was harboring banned weapons and programs several years before Bush entered office only to change their claims (Bush must have lied) AFTER no banned weapons were found?

Conclusion: Repeating the mantra that “Bush Lied” is, in my opinion, both myopic and unhelpful if we are to learn from our actions and/or mistakes.

-

Note: I have never addressed another on this forum in the manner I do with Manchild. He is truly a nasty and bitter piece of work.

Has it occurred to you that manchild has, so far, been unable to disprove even a single piece of information I’ve shared here? He simply keeps repeating the same mantra. I fail to see things as he claims so, I am must therefor be the liar.

Manchild is genuinely, and almost completely, irrational. If I didn’t know better I would think he was sent to this forum by Michael Steele and the RNC to make progressives appear small, bigoted and hateful.

I wish you a good coming week.

Go Right Young Man, November 7 at 8:31 pm #

How about an honesty test, Manchild? Up for it? smile

Why don’t you show us your exceptional nature and abilities by once again showing us how you learned of the Taliban offer to hand bin Laden to Bush.

You use the word “honesty” as if you had the faintest notion of its meaning. Considering that I have already posted links to the offer of the Taliban to deliver bin Laden I think you should immediately add ‘dis’ to your own self image concerning your own honesty.

I think, by the by, that I am considerably older than are you. I know I am rather far more honest. You do not seek debate, even with one as fair and evenhanded as DBM, who, I expect, will soon tire of your DIShonesty and leave the field to speak with far better than you. You seem to think that smarminess wins you points, typical right wing jackoff…..

I’m going to have to do a comment and run ... I will be away for the next week.  Thanks everyone for your discussion.

Go Right,  our discussion of Fox and whether they tell outright obvious lies more than most has morphed into a discussion of whether Bush lied regarding WMD in Iraq and and Al Qaeda connection.  I don’t mean to cut this discussion off without exploring how you have come to your opinions but ... (yes, I know - a “but”) ... my understanding of intelligence work is a lot like what all of us do in reading what is going on the world.  Most of us do not travel to Iraq, or sit in the same room as Bin Laden as he plots.  Instead we hear a lot of information from lots of different sources and synthesise it based on related information and frame-of-reference.  People coming from different frames-of-reference will always struggle to see things in dissonance with their points of view but we still need to think.  That is where interchanges such as ours are useful even if we don’t reach eventual agreement.

I have not had the time to look at the links in your last update but will do so when I get back.  I have no doubt that there are alternative sources I could find showing a wealth of advice that WMD were very unlikely and that a Saddam / Bin Laden connection would beggar belief.  That alternative points of view are available is the reason why intelligence is customarily presented with “degrees of confidence”.  My whole argument about the Bush administration’s reading of the intelligence is predicated on the role of the OSP.  Whether Feith’s office was a nefarious operation which cherry picked dubious and out-of-date information to mislead a credulous president or whether Bush was as keen as Cheney to be fed excuses to do what he already intended to do for his own reasons, we may never know (Cheney personally made a lot of money while Bush’s motives were probably more political).  What was clear at the time, and I’ve not seen any convincing reason to think otherwise since, is that those coming from a position of wanting to avoid war were unable to see evidence warranting an invasion of Iraq.  There were lots of starry-eyed visions of being greeted as liberators and funding the whole project out of future oil revenues.  Indeed there have been fortunes made on the war but not the oil resource kind, more the arms and ammunition kind ... and of course, the stellar services of Halliburton, KBR and Blackwater.  That, and being unable to admit error is why the occupation continues.

I fear that Obama is making a similarly poor decision about staying in Afghanistan ... time will tell.

So, thank you very much for your thoughts.  I don’t think I have changed your mind and you have not changed mine ... yet!  But the exchange has been very useful and I will look up some of the sources you have suggested.

How about an honesty test, Manchild? Up for it?

Why don’t you show us your exceptional nature and abilities by once again showing us how you learned of the Taliban offer to hand bin Laden to Bush.

LMAO….You make this far too easy for me.

Go Right Young Man, November 7 at 3:28 pm

Firstly ,your idiotic insults affect me not at all.

Secondly, your transparent attempts to distort fact fails to pass unnoticed, by the whole forum I suspect. I think it pretty neat you fail to see what a complete fool you make of yourself. As a propagandist you suck….

Gore’s point was that we should NOT INVADE Iraq..A point you found convenient to ignore in typical and fairly desperate extreme right wing fashion.

@CT,

I am just now beginning to believe the charges I’ve been seeing repeatedly from political opponents. It does appear to me that the staff the president chose to be closest to him practice a form of the thuggish Chicago politik.

I think we’re witnessing this in the White House’s treatment of those who dare to be critical. Unfortunately for the White House it won’t work. As a result of the attention FOX News ratings are continuously rising.

I understand Glenn Becks program at 5:p.m performs better than all combined cable news programming in the prime time slot.

DBM,

Manchild claims he’s in a position to confirm what I’ve written in previous posts regarding Vice President Gore’s comments on WMD in Iraq. Wherein Gore stated; Saddam Hussein’s quest for WMD has “proven impossible to deter and we should assume he will continue for as long as he is in power”.

Question: Why would Gore say such a thing after eight years of Presidential briefings? Why would he actually help President Bush lie about banned weapons in Iraq?

I’ll take the time to give credit where due. Thank you, Manchild, for unwittingly bolstering my point.

Manchild,

You have a terrific knack of missing the point entirely.

Democratic consultant says he got a warning from White House after appearing on Fox News
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-fox7-2009nov07,0,7720786.story

Those still attempting to salvage some of George Bushs’ honor or reputation are wasting their time.

While the sanctions against Iraq were horrible to the people of that nation, ineffective in achieving any goals other than a geometric rise in the deaths of children, the claims made by those who supported and abetted said sanctions seems obvious ( I was, interestingly enough, at that Gore speech at the SF Commonwealth Club in 02 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/gore_text092302.html) and will attest, as will the link, that Gore spoke out against the invasion of Iraq, and quite pointedly.

But nice try anyway too far right to care about truth. It was not Clinton who invaded Iraq, it was not Clinton who abandoned
a cornered bin Laden at Tora Bora to devote himself and this nation to a vendetta to avenge the assassination attempt upon his father. That some spoke about mythic weapons of mass destruction when speaking about Hussein simply holds no water when considering that it wasnt they but Bush who violated international law and common sense, as it was Bush and Cheney who used the Constitution as so much toilet paper.

DBM,

If you find the time this weekend please see the following documents.

Who Said Iraq Had WMD?
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AaN2f0uvKtBoZGhnYnp0NTVfMTJnNm5zcHpmcQ&hl=en

Iraqi Links To Terrorism
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AaN2f0uvKtBoZGhnYnp0NTVfOTZmem16a2M5&hl=en

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AaN2f0uvKtBoZGhnYnp0NTVfMTNkMnE3d2NoZw&hl=en

1. If President Bush lied then it demands that we pay attention to who all told the world that Saddam Hussein held weapons that had been banned to him by the United Nations.

2. Why did the intelligence community believe Hussein had cooperated with global terrorists (including al Qaeda and al Qaeda types)? I have more. Much more!

3. What had President Clinton and the 105th Congress decide to do about Saddam Hussein? Why did more than 500 individuals, and the White House, decide to remove Saddam from power and work toward building a democracy in Iraq several years before President Bush ran for the presidency?

Why does the bulk of the elite media ignore it’s own reporting throughout all of the 1990’s?

If you like I can supply you with multiples of dozens of global news articles outlining Iraq’s failure to come clean, work on banned weapons and links to global terrorists.

How timely ... I just saw this:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20091103_todays_us_army_and_its_ambitions/?ln

Re the Gertz story ...

If only there was a lot more reporting like this!  When I followed the link there was a photo at the top of a military funeral as well.  What possible value was gained by these deaths? 

The situation for Afghans is no better and possibly worse than before the Americans got there. 

This incredibly poor country is no credible threat to its neighbours let alone the West. 

The drug trade has grown exponentially under American rule (and it IS American rule).

The cost of this debacle would provide a Wall Street bailout every couple of years.  Or Medicare for all.  Or free university education.  Or an upgrade of infrastructure.  Or a tax break for the middle class!!

Projections are that it will take decades to “win” the war ... whatever that looks like.

No-one seems to be able to identify who exactly is to be defeated and what should take their place.

So I agree with you ... Obama needs to rally his courage and his smarts to find a politically feasible way to get out of there.  Roll on full and frank coverage of every pointless death and injury.  Let’s have full exposure of where all the money goes in these wars.

Only then will there be political wiggle room to stop the madness.

DBM,

Will respond to your latest posts this evening or coming weekend. Much to think about and do today.

-

Came across this item and wondering to myself; where are the elite, unbiased, truth-telling, non-FOX media on the total incompetence of the Obama administration concerning this Gertz piece? Where are the dozens of stories on how the Obama team got soldiers killed due to arrogance, hubris and ineptitude?

You may not have noticed, however, this is exactly the type of thing the bulk of the media would have pounced on in order to display the “failure” that was the Bush administration. The coverage would have been relentless. Everyone with an opinion would have been given voice on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, HNN, the Obama network-MSNBC and the New York and L.A. Times.

“Three intelligence reports warned that Taliban insurgents were planning an attack just days before this month’s raid on two remote military outposts in eastern Afghanistan that killed eight U.S. soldiers, but the reports were dismissed as insignificant, U.S. officials told The Washington Times. “

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/16/us-ignored-warnings-before-deadly-afghan-attack/?feat=home_cube_position1

No. I’m in no way laying blame at the feet of the White House. That would be, well, ridiculous. Yes?

... and one last comment about how “notable” Al Qaeda’s ties with Saddam’s Iraq were:

For an object lesson in the difference between “discussions” and and “operational” relationship ... refer to the CIA’s relationship with Saddam pre-Kuwait!

An important conclusion from Aslan’s Slate review (linked below):

“...al-Qaida has been spectacularly successful, thanks in no small part to the assistance of the divisive “Clash of Civilizations” mentality of our own politicians. In fact, far from debunking al-Qaida’s twisted vision of a world divided in two, the Bush administration has legitimized it through its own morally reductive “us vs. them” rhetoric.”

Sorry, you also wanted my comments on Osama Bin Laden presumably in addition to my previous comment on Al Qaeda as a whole ...

I think he’s a dangerous twisted criminal.  He may or may not be dead.  Either way he is a rallying point for people in the Arab and/or Muslim world with grievances against the West and an encouragement to violence.  His willingness to kill indiscriminately in pursuit of his enemies is evil.  I’d like to see him face a court and a prison for his crimes.

That said, even if he is still alive his stated aims of a “Caliphate” and the destruction of Israel are well beyond his means.  At the height of his influence he was less powerful than Saddam Hussein ... but more influential and, unlike Saddam, actually focused on the West as much or more than his neighbours. 

Why do you ask?

Kudos Go Right for going to the source in this collection of writings.  I agree that reading the words of enemies is a good idea.  I also believe that those in power should speak to them and listen (let’s say even without “preconditions”:-)).  There is an excellent review of the book in slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2171752/pagenum/all/).  I think it’s great that Ibrahim has gone to the trouble to translate this work and make it available.

Going off the “dust-jacket” quote from Amazon I note this comment about it: 

“... whether a hodgepodge of interviews, declarations, and exegetical arguments can be read as a sort of jihadist manifesto is debatable.”  (if you’re like me you had to look up “exegetical” which means interpretive!)

It is, however, spectacularly more sensible that the trite and ridiculous assertion that “they hate us for our freedom” (to which apparently Bin Laden himself replied “why then did we not attack Sweden?”).

I would not take this set of writings by what amount to “cult leaders” as a reason for war ... police action, “man-hunts” (of the police kind not the Predator drone type), extradition and diplomatic pressure absolutely.  But war?  Hardly more fair that bombing the U.S. because of the KKK.

BTW - Al Qaeda may wish they were “totalitarian” but as they are not a state anywhere they are not.  Neither is the mafia!

Here is an example of the type of reading and research that Manchild will refuse to participate in. The actual teachings and stated goals of Zawahiri and bin Laden will be of no interest.

If fact the written words of these two men are so completely contrary to what Manchild has learned, via the media, that he will say that THEY are the liars regarding what they have themselves said and written. He will quickly, with little forethought, accuse them both of lying because they do not see their cause the way he sees their cause.

The Al Qaeda Reader (Hardcover)
~ Raymond Ibrahim (Editor)

http://www.amazon.com/Al-Qaeda-Reader-Raymond-Ibrahim/dp/038551655X

What do our enemies believe? What motivates their war against the West? What is their vision of the ideal Islamic society? Surprisingly, more than eight years after 9/11, there is very little understanding of these questions.

Despite the tendency to dismiss Islamic extremism as profoundly irrational, al-Qaeda is not without a coherent body of beliefs.  Like other totalitarian movements, the movement’s leaders have rationalized their brutality in a number of published treatises.  The Al Qaeda Reader gathers together the essential texts and documents that trace the origin, history, and evolution of the ideas of al-Qaeda founders Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden.

“This extraordinary collection of the key texts of the al-Qaeda movement—including incendiary materials never before translated into English—lays bare the minds, motives, messages, and ultimate goals of an enemy bent on total victory. Al-Qaeda’s chilling ideology calls for a relentless (fascistic) jihad against non-Muslim “infidels,” repudiates democracy in favor of Islamic law, stresses the importance of martyrdom, and mocks the notion of “moderate” Islam.”

DBM,

Before Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was eliminated his speeches, interviews and Fatwa’s could be found in many Syrian, Lebanese, Egyptian and, before 2003, Iraqi State newspapers.Before Abdel Aziz Rantisi was eliminated his articles, speeches, press conferences and edicts were found the world over.

Contrary to you twice assuming that I deploy a wide net over the whole of Islam you seemed not to notice that I was deliberate in not including all of Gaza, or even the whole of Hamas, under a single umbrella. I wrote only of those I’ve studied myself.

What you refer to as “tenuous” ties (a common word used amongst the elite media) between Iraq and al Qaeda types I call notable. In fact the latest U.S., British and Saudi intelligence reports, released in the past 12 to 18 months, and available to the public, outlines numerous “contacts” and “cooperation” between Saddam’s Iraq and “al Qaeda”. What was not found in these latest reports were, and we need to be exact here, “operational ties”. In others words; while contact and cooperation are known to be numerous and mutually beneficial to both, they did NOT carryout “operations” together. Nonetheless this is a far cry from the “tenuous” and/or “no links found” refrain from those not actually paying attention to details but, rather, the media.

You write that I appeared upset that you didn’t’t respond as I wished to my questions. Not so at all. If you go back you’ll see that you didn’t address my questions at all. “Pull-the-trigger”? I do not consider you some sort of adversary and hope that you’ll not assume that posture yourself. I was merely attempting to stay on topic and, get to a point I thought important.

You write: “it seems that they (Saddam and al Qaeda) were never able to overcome the substantial obstacle that Hussein was a secular Arab leader while Al Qaeda felt that Islam be the central facet of any Arab state”.

Can you show me how you know this? Can you direct me toward an intelligence report, white paper or scholarly study which supports your understanding? Something other than what you’ve heard countless times in the elite media giving anyone with an opinion the chance to repeat that falsity so many times that it’s now become “common knowledge”? I would be interested to see anything of substance that you may add and make it part of my own overall understanding.

It seems you either don’t have the time, or the inclination, to follow-up on the reading I’ve suggested numerous times (example” the U.N. resolutions and weapons inspectors reports proves much of what I’ve written). But, if you would, pick up a copy of “The Al Qaeda Reader”. In this compilation you’ll find the accumulative writings of Dr. Zawahiri and Usama bin Laden. If you do find the time to read their respective teachings yourself you’ll better understand my use of the term “Islamo-Fascism”. In my use of the term there needs be no actual state to be fascistic. The mere desire or goal (as you yourself point out) is sufficient.

1:a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

I am aware of the goals of our self proclaimed enemies. I have listened to their grievances and collective tactics and teachings. In those I have carefully referred to they meet the very definition of fascistic.

Lastly: I appreciate an opportunity to make a point if you could address my previous questions concerning bin Laden.

But Ardee, there are so many ranters about who cannot articulate why or even what they think!  When someone is willing to back up his positions with argument it is well worth exploring and parrying the ideas rather than the man.

I find it hard to understand how people arrive at what I consider illogical positions so I have to listen when someone is willing to explain.

DBM, November 5 at 9:31 am

I am grateful that you are here to respond to one who apparently thinks overmuch of himself and his own opinions ( to him they are unassailable facts) and nothing at all of anyone else. I doubt, however , this person sees how you destroy his clowish positions, and with ever so polite response.

I am certain of one thing, he has not done anywhere near the “studying” he so pompously brays about.

I simply canot stomach the fool and cannot resist noting such.

Go Right,

If you wish to define “Fascism” or any other word differently from the dictionary, I guess that’s your perogative.  It does make communication a little less precise. 

No, you didn’t mention Hamas but you did tell me:

“I’ve read the teachings of Dr, Zawahiri, bin Laden, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi and Mohammad Taha. I’ve read the charter of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. I’ve studied the teachings of the Islamic Dawa Party and Jaish Abu Bakr.”

Yassin and al-Rantissi were founders of Hamas ... where exactly did you read their teachings?

You asked “Ok. al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Is Usama Bin Laden a threat? If not? why not? If so what makes him dangerous? If he’s a threat today what are you prepared to do about it?” ... I answered with two paragraphs; one about Al Qaeda and one about Saddam.  Did you miss that update?  You seem upset that I didn’t respond as you wished so you could pull-the-trigger on your information regarding an Al Qaeda / Hussein connection. 

However, you dropped in all the Saddam/Al Qaeda link material in response to Ardee ... it is a little weak.  I’ve no doubt that there may have been meetings at some level, but it seems that they were never able to overcome the substantial obstacle that Hussein was a secular Arab leader while Al Qaeda felt that Islam be the central facet of any Arab state.  You might also have mentioned that Saddam made payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.  However, even the common enemy of the U.S. does not seem to have been enough to bring these two parties together.  The bottom line is that any ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam’s Iraq were tenuous at best but played up considerably in propaganda to justify an invasion ... an invasion that led to a debacle that may yet lead to the impoverishment of the richest nation on earth.  Very sad.