"Republican" media were not cheering for the enemies of the US at the time.

The 'Republican' media ?

Do you infer here that there is some kind of Democratic media that is cheering on the enemies of the nation ? That you'll have to prove....

The media is constantly called leftist by those who carry water for this administration, .....if the press even questions anything the administration does, ... the wingnuts start the leftist media chant.... (like, maybe if you say something enough times, that could make it true,
ha ha)

See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things
over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the
propaganda. (Wingnut Applause.) GW Bush may 24 05


........no one in their right mind believes that the media of today is actually 'leftist', but that doesn't stop the claims of the Keyboard Komandos from falsely repeating the charge.

The media today,.....which is now overwhelming controlled by about 5 large multinationals, several with clear ties to military industrial contracts with the current administration, cannot be proven to be even close to having a leftist or liberal slant, that charge doesn't hold water,

.......and no one who has paid much real attention could doubt that for much of the current administrations term, the media has provided little or nothing but blind cheerleading.

Personally, I think the President has not one redeeming quality and his policies are not in the best interests of the country.

Yes, the quote is correctly reproduced..... that's what I said.

See what I mean?

No, ....I don't 'see what you mean'...... Not at all,

You went on to describe something I didn't say.... I wasn't referring to all the Bush appointees or at past employees of any administration.... I said Bush has not one redeeming quality.

...(and he's not a 'broken clock' who could be right every 2 out of 24 tries.....he's worse, he's got an agenda which is not in the best interests of the nation)

So what the heck do you mean by your ''see what I mean?'' ? Do you mean you can twist things to your seeming advantage in a debate..... ( see what I mean, ) or did you mean to actually address something I said.

Instead of directing your comments to either proving false what I have posted, or refuting specific statements I have made, .......all I see is strange comparisons trying to be made between strange and unconnected examples of someone else's idolatry of the Bush administration.....

Here's one to try... there has not been a 9/11-scale attack anywhere on Earth since the US woke up on 9/11 and started actively combatting al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. There has not been a foreign terrorist attack of any kind on US soil since the anthrax letters which appear to have been launched on 9/11 in a use-it-or-lose it desperate strike.

No there has not been an incident which claimed that many lives at once, but you're conveniently ignoring the hundreds and possibly thousands who have died as a direct result of terrorist acts such as, to just name a couple, ....embassy bombings and hotel/resort bombings since 9/11.

There's not one report actually asserting that we are any more safe now, there's not one report that asserts the world is actually any more stable in terms of terrorist possibilities....

.....though there are reports which directly point to the contrary. That we are definately not safer, and that instabilitly and terrorist capabilities are growing....

That there hasn't been an attempt in the US could be just blind dumb luck to a large extent... we know that the policies don't tread on some of the industries which can effectively lobby against terrorism controls, I'll cite the chemical industry and the ports for starters.

(jeebus, someone here even inferred that there actually could be safer container inspection regimens implimented if we turn over our ports to an Arab oligarchy with questionable ties to terror? ...boy, ...were they ever trying to paint pretty lips on that pig, eh?)

We 'let' Osama get away, even the Pentagon admits this, (had you forgotten?), and all because Bush and the neocons misdirected our efforts to Iraq.... by any measure, our policies have fomented more hate in the Middle East, and while we've so far avoided a 9/11 scale attack, that's not any reason to think it couldn't happen at any time. The reports from our own government, the reports from our own military, all show that we are no better prepared than we used to be, in terms of effective change that could prevent a terrorist attack....

...and octagon, the 'anthrax' scare has not been traced to any verifiable terrorist suspect organization, .....it's as likely to have been a domestic terrorist attack as it is an Al Queda attack..... if I were you I'd not make assertions that have little basis in known conclusive evidence from investigations into the facts about the anthrax 'scare'...... that kind of thing just gives the appearance of being a little desperate for confirmation of your fears....

But according to your reasoning, this is a bad thing. Look at your statement to see this inescapable conclusion based on your logic.

Talk about trying to put words in someone's mouth, eh? You can search all you want, you won't have found me making assinine assertions such as you would accredite to me with that little one liner....

---------------------------------------------------

...answer me another thing, since I see the handwringing over the use of forged documents here...... where is the handwringing when the Bush administration used forged documents to convince the public we should invade and occupy another sovereign nation?

Double standards at work, right....? For anyone else to do illegal acts, it's a crime, for Bush to do the same thing, it's fine, ...........hell, he's the president. He get's a buy, because of some wrongly conceived notion of loyalty.....

Other's can try to justify that odd little paradox, (or that blatent hypocrisy), with their machinations, .......but even they know that ultimately, it doesn't pass muster..... it's a front and an unworthy one for one to be involved in, ..at that.

later, octagon.....

report back when you aren't trying to label someone, or trying to demean them with your slanderous accusations of being 'unpatriotic'..... I'm flying my American flag, ...I'm not wrapping myself in it in order to get away with illegal invasions, torture, and lies, and unConstitutional wiretapping ....etc, etc, etc.....

see ya,

---

>>Personally, I think the President has not one redeeming quality>>

Hey PZ- The guy never shot anybody...cc

>>Personally, I think the President has not one redeeming quality>>

Hey PZ- The guy never shot anybody...cc

Niether did your buddy Clinton......

---

>>Personally, I think the President has not one redeeming quality>>

Hey PZ- The guy never shot anybody...cc

Niether did your buddy Clinton......

Yeah... In fact, former President Clinton has stated several times that he thinks his biggest mistake & regret was not to interfere in Rwanda to stop the genocide there.

What is better: a president that acts and tries to do the right thing, or not act - afraid that you might do something wrong? The answer is obvious: it is always better to act, as long as you try to do the right thing. Sitting with your hands in your lap and watch has never changed the world into a better place!

"Republican" media were not cheering for the enemies of the US at the time.

The 'Republican' media ?

Do you infer here that there is some kind of Democratic media that is cheering on the enemies of the nation ? That you'll have to prove....

If you can't see that there are different media outlets with differing biases, you are so unprepared for serious debate that it's scary.

If you simply mean that no major US media outlet actively works against the interests of the US, then you have not been paying attention. For example, the Abu Graib scandal was newsworthy, and certainly should have been reported, but there were obvious anti-Bush slants to many of the outlet's approach. Some outlets showed the images over and over, dug as much as possible to fit some pre-conceived notion that Bush signed some memo that said "Please make us look as bad as possible by doing un-useful hazing that's about 2% as vicious as what the terrorist insurgent do to their captives." Several media outlets sued for the release of additiona images... which were virtually identical to the ones already released, which added absolutely nothing to the story, but always with insuations that the 'really' bad ones were the ones withheld. No examination of any of those images revealed anything remotely as bad as what certain Iraqi captors, sometimes called 'freedom fighters by these same media outlets, did to their captives. (I'm emphatically not endorsing what that squad of MP's did, but the reporting of it was over the top. You'd think from the relative media outrage that it was the Americans who were beheading people.)

Another case of out-of-whack relative outrage is how Trent Lott was drummed out of his job because of an off-hand light-hearted comment but Senator Clinton gets a pass over and over for things that she says because these same media outlets want her to be president.

There are also entire websites documenting liberal bias in media outlets and rigorous academic papers as well. Further examples abound.

........no one in their right mind believes that the media of today is actually 'leftist'

Wrong.

.......and no one who has paid much real attention could doubt that for much of the current administrations term, the media has provided little or nothing but blind cheerleading.

Still wrong.

Personally, I think the President has not one redeeming quality and his policies are not in the best interests of the country.

Yes, the quote is correctly reproduced..... that's what I said.

See what I mean?

No, ....I don't 'see what you mean'...... Not at all,

You went on to describe something I didn't say.... I wasn't referring to all the Bush appointees or at past employees of any administration.... I said Bush has not one redeeming quality.

I may have unfairly lumped you in with the guilt-by-association group on the US left. Either the president is responsible for everyone in the administration or he isn't.

I have seen the same person (not you) say that Clinton was responsible for keeping the Millenium Bomber out of the country, but INS catching the 20th hijacker was just dumb luck. You should aspire to more consistent reasoning.

...(and he's not a 'broken clock' who could be right every 2 out of 24 tries.....he's worse, he's got an agenda which is not in the best interests of the nation)

Even someone with a socialist agenda like Clinton can occasionally sign things like NAFTA and welfare reform. If you can't think of a single action taken by President Bush is several years of governing that was helpful, you have some serious blinders on.

No there has not been an incident which claimed that many lives at once, but you're conveniently ignoring the hundreds and possibly thousands who have died as a direct result of terrorist acts such as, to just name a couple, ....embassy bombings and hotel/resort bombings since 9/11.

This would be why we're at war with them.

There's not one report actually asserting that we are any more safe now, there's not one report that asserts the world is actually any more stable in terms of terrorist possibilities....

.....though there are reports which directly point to the contrary. That we are definately not safer, and that instabilitly and terrorist capabilities are growing....

No one with a realistic perspective expected World War III to be over in short order. There are, however, there are two distinct types of 'terrorist capability.' There is manpower and there is operational competence. While the manpower of some diffuse 'terrorism' force might be increasing, the complexity of operations has been steadily decreasing. This is not the hallmark of a side that's winning.

That there hasn't been an attempt in the US could be just blind dumb luck to a large extent... we know that the policies don't tread on some of the industries which can effectively lobby against terrorism controls, I'll cite the chemical industry and the ports for starters.

There are several industries with lobbying power that seems to trump national security in Congress's eyes (Congress does right the enabling legislation here). Exhibit One is border control.

(jeebus, someone here even inferred that there actually could be safer container inspection regimens implimented if we turn over our ports to an Arab oligarchy with questionable ties to terror? ...boy, ...were they ever trying to paint pretty lips on that pig, eh?)

Read back and see who wrote that :-)

I was agreeing with your assertion that it was a bad idea to 'sell' the ports, but I was trying to find a silver lining.

...and octagon, the 'anthrax' scare has not been traced to any verifiable terrorist suspect organization, .....it's as likely to have been a domestic terrorist attack as it is an Al Queda attack..... if I were you I'd not make assertions that have little basis in known conclusive evidence from investigations into the facts about the anthrax 'scare'...... that kind of thing just gives the appearance of being a little desperate for confirmation of your fears....

Read what I said. there has not been a foreign terrorist attack in the US since that point in time. The anthrax attack may or may not have been foreign in nature, but it appeared to be rushed to avoid detection due to a ramp up in security following 9/11.

But according to your reasoning, this is a bad thing. Look at your statement to see this inescapable conclusion based on your logic.

Talk about trying to put words in someone's mouth, eh? You can search all you want, you won't have found me making assinine assertions such as you would accredite to me with that little one liner....

1. President Bush has an agenda that is bad for America.
2. All of President Bush's actions are poisoned by this and thus bad.
3. Al Qaeda is still trying to hit the US.
4. President Bush's policies have prevented 3.
5. Since 2 makes 4 bad, then a successful attack must have been the preferable outcome.

I now you can't possibly mean that, but it is what you said.

...answer me another thing, since I see the handwringing over the use of forged documents here...... where is the handwringing when the Bush administration used forged documents to convince the public we should invade and occupy another sovereign nation?

Double standards at work, right....? For anyone else to do illegal acts, it's a crime, for Bush to do the same thing, it's fine, ...........hell, he's the president. He get's a buy, because of some wrongly conceived notion of loyalty.....

This does qualify as coming out of left field, but I wasn't the one with a double standard on forged documents. Recall the National Guard forged memos that took on the infallibility of Gospel for weeks?

(edit for formatting)

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

What is better: a president that acts and tries to do the right thing, or not act - afraid that you might do something wrong? The answer is obvious: it is always better to act, as long as you try to do the right thing. Sitting with your hands in your lap and watch has never changed the world into a better place!

I have never been one to hand out free passes for good intentions. In this particular case, it is more than just good intentions but actually a realistic plan based on the best intelligence available (some of which in hindsight has been wrong).

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Some Mexicans wary of telescope venture

By Ioan Grillo
ASSOCIATED PRESS

February 18, 2006

SIERRA NEGRA, Mexico – A joint Mexico-U.S. scientific venture to build a giant telescope on top of a volcano is being partly funded by the Pentagon, worrying some Mexicans who are leery of any military connections with their powerful northern neighbor.

President Vicente Fox and Mexico's scientific community have championed the telescope, the largest of its kind in the world, saying it shows how a developing country can play a major role in cutting-edge technology.

But Rosa María Aviles, a federal lawmaker on the Chamber of Deputies' Science and Technology Committee, said, “We want Mexico to be in the vanguard of scientific advance, but it would be better if all the money came from nonmilitary sources. We are a pacifist nation.”

Still, grumbling by Mexican lawmakers about the Pentagon involvement in the $120 million project has not led to broader protests or demonstrations against the telescope.

U.S. and Mexican scientists say the Pentagon often funds scientific projects so it can use the technology, but the actual telescope will have no direct military use.

The gleaming white structure, which looks like a gigantic satellite dish, springs out of volcanic rocks on the summit of the 15,000-foot-high Sierra Negra. Located in Puebla state, Sierra Negra is one of six Mexican volcanoes that are higher than any peaks in the continental United States.

Working above cloud level, the telescope will pick up millimeter-long radio waves that have been traveling through space for nearly 13 billion years. “We will get incredible new insight into how galaxies were first formed,” said project scientist David Hughes of Mexico's National Astrophysics Optics and Electronics Institute.

The United States has invested $38 million in the project, $31 million of which came from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, commonly known as DARPA.

Because the telescope is essentially a giant antenna with sensors to pick up radio waves, the military could use knowledge learned in constructing the instrument to build antennas for its own uses, said Peter Schloerb, the U.S. project scientist for the telescope.

Ho Ho...

let's take this point by point.....

If you can't see that there are different media outlets with differing biases, you are so unprepared for serious debate that it's scary.

Not what I said, answer what I asked instead of confusing the issue with diversions... eh?

I asked you if would answer to what you inferred here, ......your inference was that there is some kind of Democratic media that is cheering on the enemies of the nation ?

And I stated, .....that you'll have to prove...

You neither answered the question about whether you backed up your assertion, nor did you come close to offering any evidence the media was 'controlled' by the Democrats, ...........nor did you identify any news outlet to support your claim that some US media outlet is cheering on the enemies of this nation.....

.......what conclusion can be drawn from that? The conclusion I draw is that you are willing to make wildly inflammatory assertions and then for the obvious reasons, .....you then misdirect rather than answer the question about proving your assertions....

Name names, octagon.... it's a serious charge you make, ...you ought to be able to back them up or stop making them......
---------------------------------------------------

If you simply mean that no major US media outlet actively works against the interests of the US, then you have not been paying attention.

If I simply meant something other than what I did say, I simply would have said something other than what I did say......

I'll ask again, which major US media outlet is controlled by the Democrats and actively works against the interests of the US?

That's a serious charge you claim..... now name names and show your proof.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll address the rest of your points in some following posts...... let's keep this one on message if you can and see if you can't address the question of which major US media outlet is controlled by the Democrats and actively works against the best interests of the nation....

that was your assertion, that's what you inferred, .....I'd appreciate if you could back up your assertions and your inferences.

...

---

Should we let an Arab country do our port security?
Chertoff says Dubai port deal includes safeguards.
They have to be crazy even to consider this.

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

Should we let an Arab country do our port security?
Chertoff says Dubai port deal includes safeguards.
They have to be crazy even to consider this.

I also find this absurd on its face. The only justification I can think of, which I wouldn't find compelling, is that they think a foreign company would be more receptive to intrusive and expensive security measures.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

.Remember all those pro-U.S. stories the Pentagon was contracting with the Lincoln Group to write and then paying the Iraqi press to publish? Donald Rumsfeld was asked about that program last night and gave one of his trademark Mr. Rogers answers:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-infowar18feb18,1,1082213.story?ctrack=1&cset=true


"When we heard about it, we said, 'Gee, that's not what we ought to be doing,' " Rumsfeld said Friday during a taped interview on PBS' "The Charlie Rose Show.".... "They stopped doing that," he said.

The LA Times is too discreet to say it outright, but as the rest of the article makes clear, Rumsfeld was lying:


One person familiar with Lincoln Group's operations, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of an ongoing investigation, said the program in Iraq was still active as of a week ago.

Army Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said during a Dec. 16 news conference — more than two weeks after the existence of the operation was revealed — that it had not been shut down.

"We did a preliminary assessment shortly after the [news stories] came out, and we concluded that we were operating within our authorities and the appropriate legal procedures. And so we have not suspended any of the processes up to now," Casey said.

I'm sure Rumsfeld will get a stern talking to from his boss over this. After all, we can't have administration officials misleading the American public, can we?

---

I'd like to see a Republican explain this away. Has to White House totally lost their minds?

---

Account frozen...

I'd like to see a Republican explain this away. Has to White House totally lost their minds?

I'd like to see anyone explain it. Given the neglected state of border security with Mexico and Canada, things are mind-bogglingly going in the wrong direction.

Of course, Republicans will actually say that their leaders have done something wrong. I'm still waiting for someone to denounce the race-baiting by prominent Democrats. One example among many is Senator Clinton's plantation statement.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

I'd like to see a Republican explain this away. Has to White House totally lost their minds?

I'd like to see anyone explain it. Given the neglected state of border security with Mexico and Canada, things are mind-bogglingly going in the wrong direction.

Of course, Republicans will actually say that their leaders have done something wrong. I'm still waiting for someone to denounce the race-baiting by prominent Democrats. One example among many is Senator Clinton's plantation statement.

You're not going to get me to defend the indefensable.

---

Account frozen...

I'd like to see a Republican explain this away. Has to White House totally lost their minds?

What does the White House have to do with it? Why would Dubya, or anyone in any adminstration have anything to do with one foreign company buying another foreign company?

As far as I know the company only takes over loading and unloading operations at 5 terminals scattered throughout these ports. The Coast Guard is still responsible for the ships themselves, Port Authority Police are still responsible for security, Customs still handles the cargo and the containers, and Immigration still handles people issues.

Not that foreign-owned makes all that much sense, but the company that was handling loading operations at those five terminals already was foreign owned.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Geez.
I really don't like politics much.
I guess it doesn't help that I don't get 100% of it.
What's Left? What's Right? Why does it have to be different between e.g. USA vs UK vs Hong Kong, for that matter?

USA: Republicans v Democrats. Are Democrats, Liberal?
HK: they have Democrats, fighting against Mainland Communism.
UK: Labour v Conservative. Then there's the LibDems; Liberal Democrats.

No, I never took any politics class. I'm curious, but maybe not that curious...

C[x]

---

---

Account frozen...

"Permanent Bases"?

...in Iraq?

...Bush said it would never happen.....

Rumsfield said it would never happen....

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=59774

---