Well, they annoyed the hell out of me by "accusing" Dems of something they supported for 5 years. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 27/05/2010 03:31:37 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 Fo
--which he excuses on the grounds that "everyone is doing it. " Even 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.
so you stopped supporting him on November of 2003 when Medicare Part D was passed but not in March 2003 when he invaded Iraq and started this unnecessary and EXPENSIVE war in Iraq that we cant ever get out of and is burning billions in tax dollars as we speak? nice.
Um, ask them before Obama took office though....
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.
'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.
--which he excuses on the grounds that "everyone is doing it. " Even 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.Obviously, this is a bit of a challenge since Wotmania is no more, but to refresh your memory, I stopped supporting Bush in 2003 when he pushed through that financial disaster called Medicare Part D.....FLUSH goes our money.
so you stopped supporting him on November of 2003 when Medicare Part D was passed but not in March 2003 when he invaded Iraq and started this unnecessary and EXPENSIVE war in Iraq that we cant ever get out of and is burning billions in tax dollars as we speak? nice.
Um, ask them before Obama took office though....
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.
'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.