Well, they annoyed the hell out of me by "accusing" Dems of something they supported for 5 years.
Joel Send a noteboard - 27/05/2010 03:30:08 PM
Ardently supported, to the point of questioning the patriotism and loyalty of anyone who didn't share that support. rt defends them, but even he admits they have a clear and open bias--which they vehemently deny (about the only example of consistency at Fox )--which he excuses on the grounds that "everyone is doing it. " Even if that were true (which I don't think it is) and even if he hadn't accused me of using just that argument solely so he could dismiss it, "it's OK because everyone is doing it" may convince a prison population that rape is OK, but I expect better of supposed journalists.
'Cos I'm headed to bed any minute, for one thing; maybe this weekend, which will supposedly be five days long (but that was as of four days ago; things have a way of changing....
)
But I don't give Dems a pass on inconsistent hypocrisy either; if anything I hold them to a higher standard, not because I identify with them (I actually don't, for the most part) but because Faux "News" isn't our elected political leadership (for which I thank God!
) Senate Dems went AWOL on the Iraq war vote, and have since found it put them in a political quagmire of their own. They can't "cut and run" but they don't have any more of an end game than Bush did (near as I can tell, Bushs "end game" was the 22nd Amendment: Now THAT'S leadership! 
) They didn't even bother to read the IWR OR the "PATRIOT" Act, and even if Bush insisted there was no time due to emergency, they were the ones who let themselves be frightened (by poll numbers, not emergency) into rubber stamping it.
Yet at times spending on the war HAS gotten controversial and adversarial; again, it was a bill much like the one Faux is criticizing here that Kerry voted against, saying, "I actually voted for the bill before I voted against it" (because of the spending amendments) and considering that was the rallying cry of those calling him "unfit for command" I'd say there was a little controversy and opposition, however belated. It also illustrates why Congressional Dems, even when they had a majority, didn't fight Bush more on Iraq spending: Because whatever their basis for doing so, it would have been characterized as "voting against the troops. "
If you're telling me that the Dems have been supporting the war funding because they don't have the backbone to 'do the right thing' then I'm inclined to agree, it's more or less what a lot of the right has thought for years. I tend to prefer honest wrong over coat-holding coward myself, though I still believe this war has been just. On the other hand I genuinely believe a lot of the Dems really did and do support the war for the right reasons.
The first two sentences are why Kerry got his head handed to him in a race where, just weeks before the election, the incumbent was trailing both "someone else" and "another candidate" in national polling. People disgusted by the Dems weathervane leadership and the Clintonian government by focus group could at least respect Bush for having the strength of his convictions even if they didn't agree with them. After all, the law of averages says sooner or later there'll be an issue on which someone DOES agree with a President, and with Bush you at least knew he'd stand by that; with most of the Dems their support was only as deep as the next negative poll. Believe me, I hear what you're saying, and agree in principle--I just happen to believe the Iraq War has been such a disaster, and supply side economics ALWAYS such a disaster, that even a vacillating Dem was preferable, albeit not by much. From a "the government is best that governs least" perspective, how much damage can they do if they aren't really COMMITTED to ANY course?
"Faux 'News'" was directed at the thread in general. And remember the old saw: "Do you know how DUMB the average man is? Well, by definition, half of them are dumber than THAT!" (and, yes, I'm aware of the difference between a mean and a median.) Surely you don't mean to tell me you TRUST Fox OR CNN? It doesn't square with what I understood to be the views on media bias that you referenced. For the most part I do see them as two sides of the same partisan coin, and that they lead polls about what are the most trusted news sources reflects little more to me than just how polarized the nation has become.
I for one have not seen any figure that doesn't do things like include our normal military operating costs that puts the price tag for Iraq at even a trillion dollars, most reliable figures have it at about 700 billion to date and likely to cost 1 trillion tops when all is said and done, adjusting for inflation WWII cost us about 5 trillion dollars, Vietnam just under a trillion, and the Korean War 1.5 trillion - not including the continued price of leaving multiple divisions there for 60 years.
I'm not fond of a lot of the deficit spending under Bush but don't tack it up to the war, nor act like that money was unjustly spent. More than half the dems voted for the invasion, and have voted for the funding. This war has not been that expensive nor has it's funding been a controversial fight between the GOP and the Dems, the latter of whom continued funding it once they gained power in '06 - need I remind you that they have had control of congress for half the time this war has been going on and racking up its tab? Don't blame our deficit woes on the war, when the deficit is well over a trillion and the annual spending is in the trillions, the hundred trillion or so we're spending specifically on Iraq each year is not the primary source of our deficit woes.
I'm not fond of a lot of the deficit spending under Bush but don't tack it up to the war, nor act like that money was unjustly spent. More than half the dems voted for the invasion, and have voted for the funding. This war has not been that expensive nor has it's funding been a controversial fight between the GOP and the Dems, the latter of whom continued funding it once they gained power in '06 - need I remind you that they have had control of congress for half the time this war has been going on and racking up its tab? Don't blame our deficit woes on the war, when the deficit is well over a trillion and the annual spending is in the trillions, the hundred trillion or so we're spending specifically on Iraq each year is not the primary source of our deficit woes.
'Cos I'm headed to bed any minute, for one thing; maybe this weekend, which will supposedly be five days long (but that was as of four days ago; things have a way of changing....
)But I don't give Dems a pass on inconsistent hypocrisy either; if anything I hold them to a higher standard, not because I identify with them (I actually don't, for the most part) but because Faux "News" isn't our elected political leadership (for which I thank God!
) Senate Dems went AWOL on the Iraq war vote, and have since found it put them in a political quagmire of their own. They can't "cut and run" but they don't have any more of an end game than Bush did (near as I can tell, Bushs "end game" was the 22nd Amendment: Now THAT'S leadership! ) They didn't even bother to read the IWR OR the "PATRIOT" Act, and even if Bush insisted there was no time due to emergency, they were the ones who let themselves be frightened (by poll numbers, not emergency) into rubber stamping it.Yet at times spending on the war HAS gotten controversial and adversarial; again, it was a bill much like the one Faux is criticizing here that Kerry voted against, saying, "I actually voted for the bill before I voted against it" (because of the spending amendments) and considering that was the rallying cry of those calling him "unfit for command" I'd say there was a little controversy and opposition, however belated. It also illustrates why Congressional Dems, even when they had a majority, didn't fight Bush more on Iraq spending: Because whatever their basis for doing so, it would have been characterized as "voting against the troops. "
If you're telling me that the Dems have been supporting the war funding because they don't have the backbone to 'do the right thing' then I'm inclined to agree, it's more or less what a lot of the right has thought for years. I tend to prefer honest wrong over coat-holding coward myself, though I still believe this war has been just. On the other hand I genuinely believe a lot of the Dems really did and do support the war for the right reasons.
The first two sentences are why Kerry got his head handed to him in a race where, just weeks before the election, the incumbent was trailing both "someone else" and "another candidate" in national polling. People disgusted by the Dems weathervane leadership and the Clintonian government by focus group could at least respect Bush for having the strength of his convictions even if they didn't agree with them. After all, the law of averages says sooner or later there'll be an issue on which someone DOES agree with a President, and with Bush you at least knew he'd stand by that; with most of the Dems their support was only as deep as the next negative poll. Believe me, I hear what you're saying, and agree in principle--I just happen to believe the Iraq War has been such a disaster, and supply side economics ALWAYS such a disaster, that even a vacillating Dem was preferable, albeit not by much. From a "the government is best that governs least" perspective, how much damage can they do if they aren't really COMMITTED to ANY course?
I'm not sure what the origin of the sudden heavy usage of "Faux News" is but just as a reminder, the majority of neutral studies on FoxNews have typically shown it to be less biased than the big three. Why you are even directing the comments about Fox News my way I do not know, I thought I'd made my views on media bias abundantly clear in the past. Just as reminder, whatever the 'real level of media bias' actually is, Fox News is the only channel that has more Americans responding with 'trust' than 'distrust', 49% trust with the next in line being a distant 39% for CNN, so while leveling charges about how dishonest they - which typically are considered groundless distortions or major exaggerations of minor slant outside leftist groups - keep in mind you're calling 49% of the US public gullible and stupid, including me.
"Faux 'News'" was directed at the thread in general. And remember the old saw: "Do you know how DUMB the average man is? Well, by definition, half of them are dumber than THAT!" (and, yes, I'm aware of the difference between a mean and a median.
) Surely you don't mean to tell me you TRUST Fox OR CNN? It doesn't square with what I understood to be the views on media bias that you referenced. For the most part I do see them as two sides of the same partisan coin, and that they lead polls about what are the most trusted news sources reflects little more to me than just how polarized the nation has become.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 27/05/2010 at 03:45:04 PM
US Debt Hits $13T - But Spending Spree in DC Continues.....
- 26/05/2010 05:09:48 PM
917 Views
- 26/05/2010 05:09:48 PM
917 Views
Look who finally remembered they oppose federal deficits.
- 26/05/2010 05:26:30 PM
540 Views
Silly Joel.....please find the posts where I supported GWB's deficit spending.
- 26/05/2010 05:35:13 PM
597 Views
hmmm
- 26/05/2010 05:40:49 PM
536 Views
That's different; spending trillions on the Iraq war is necessary national defense, just ask Fox.
- 26/05/2010 05:46:49 PM
738 Views
0.7 Trillion doesn't usually qualify as 'Trillions'
- 26/05/2010 06:16:15 PM
683 Views
I'm not willing to try parsing how much DoD spending was and wasn't Iraq just now.
- 26/05/2010 06:27:50 PM
647 Views
You can knock off the "Faux News" stuff, makes you sound like you've been hanging at Daily Kos
- 26/05/2010 07:06:16 PM
702 Views
A Fox News person was involved in writing the article so it sent him into a tissy fit
- 26/05/2010 10:56:35 PM
507 Views
Well, they annoyed the hell out of me by "accusing" Dems of something they supported for 5 years.
- 27/05/2010 03:30:08 PM
725 Views
This would sound better if you didn't say yourself the support was mostly fake
- 28/05/2010 01:05:44 PM
709 Views
I thought overthrowing Saddam was fine.....and it worked out very well.
- 26/05/2010 06:37:31 PM
506 Views
"They" plural.
- 26/05/2010 05:45:48 PM
761 Views
you are so full of crap
- 26/05/2010 05:59:47 PM
559 Views
Oh, they weren't silent; they were quite vocal in their endorsement of the Iraq war.
- 26/05/2010 06:03:51 PM
804 Views
more ranting doesn't support your argument
- 26/05/2010 06:17:22 PM
719 Views
I'll respond to the coherent part of that.
- 26/05/2010 06:30:07 PM
733 Views
- 26/05/2010 06:30:07 PM
733 Views
I wish ...
- 26/05/2010 06:57:30 PM
707 Views
Is the NYT any better pieces slandering McCain and his wife before an election?
- 26/05/2010 07:16:58 PM
571 Views
I don't know those articles specifically.
- 26/05/2010 08:27:44 PM
641 Views
So my repeated use of "M$" in moondogs thread only makes things worse? 
- 27/05/2010 03:35:06 PM
637 Views
- 27/05/2010 03:35:06 PM
637 Views
You mean you will repsond to part that you like and ignore the part you don't because of a typo
- 26/05/2010 07:18:03 PM
677 Views
I'll give Joel a little hand here...
- 26/05/2010 09:14:27 PM
744 Views
The second paragraph is very hard to follow unless you already have an idea what he's going to say.
- 27/05/2010 03:43:09 PM
650 Views
yes the good republicans spent a lot of money so democrats should spend even more argument
- 26/05/2010 05:52:57 PM
499 Views
Well, I'll certainly agree that if it's bad, it's bad whoever's doing it.
- 26/05/2010 06:00:20 PM
707 Views
you are attacking Fox News becuase you object to opposing views being expressed
- 26/05/2010 06:27:29 PM
708 Views
Not at all; I just expect a little consistency.
- 26/05/2010 06:40:07 PM
730 Views
then why not show some and admit that all the news agency were backing the war
- 26/05/2010 07:10:57 PM
708 Views
Yes, they were; most of them stopped: One of them didn't.
- 27/05/2010 03:08:34 PM
679 Views
so the other media outlets get a pass because the supported losing a war they supported starting?
- 27/05/2010 06:39:21 PM
554 Views
We were heading in the wrong direction already, but Obama/Dems put the pedal to the floor...
- 26/05/2010 06:41:48 PM
494 Views
I don't mean to defend all of the spending that Obama and Congress have done since he's in power...
- 26/05/2010 09:29:38 PM
682 Views
They did push the pedal further down even if they didn't start it
- 26/05/2010 10:46:38 PM
717 Views
Here is the problem with this kind of reporting...
- 27/05/2010 07:12:34 AM
643 Views
The problem with that kind of logic is it is wrong
- 27/05/2010 02:19:37 PM
529 Views
Yes, that would be wrong.
- 27/05/2010 03:35:30 PM
547 Views
Based on Obama's budget, he will add more to the debt over the next 10 years.....
- 27/05/2010 04:10:45 PM
465 Views
At least we agree that you are wrong because that is what you said
- 27/05/2010 06:50:43 PM
496 Views
And where does the rest of the money come from?
- 27/05/2010 08:12:31 PM
636 Views
No, that's for the entire Department of Defense.
- 27/05/2010 08:25:28 PM
538 Views
using those numbers the war appears to be about half a drop in the bucket *NM*
- 27/05/2010 08:37:31 PM
289 Views
