Thats not exactly the word I used, or would use.

Post #258,303

6/9/06 12:06:17 PM

Purposefully skewed would be my term.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #258,327

by lincoln

6/9/06 5:07:17 PM

Re: Purposefully skewed would be my term.

Can you name anything involving American politics that isn't?

(where's that sign?)

lincoln

"Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow

Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem.

I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the United States.

[link|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net|contact me]

Post #258,329

by imqwerky

6/9/06 5:12:02 PM

here ya go

[image|/forums/images/warning.png|0|This is sarcasm...]

Post #258,472

by jb4

6/11/06 9:48:04 AM

6/11/06 9:48:42 AM

So lemme get this straight

This list is factual, but because it accurately lists Democrats who served and Republican chickenhawks, it is "liberal spew", "partisan crap", and just "trying to make the Democrats feel better about themselves". In the meantime, such clearly propagandist (and factually bereft) efforst as the Swifties is quite OK in your world.

Nice. Sorta proves the lie about the "non-partisan" BeeP you've been so carefully trying to cultivate recently, don't it?

jb4
"So don't pay attention to the approval ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing. I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't."
— Stephen Colbert, at the White House Correspondent's Dinner 29Apr06

Edited by jb4 June 11, 2006, 09:48:42 AM EDT

Expand All History

Post #258,473

by imric

6/11/06 10:17:58 AM

Funny, I just searched for posts

where he approved of the swifties. Funny, nothing.

Nothing at all.

The fact that he believes that all politicians are untrustworthy, and that Democrats are no more trustworthy than Republicans is all over the place, though.

I happen to agree with him - the only difference I have with his opinion is that I believe the Neocon junta is more blatant than at other times - their control of the Executive as well as the Legislative enables them to be FAR more blatant (they are 'bulletproof' right now, and taking full advantage of it).

This is not even a new thing or a new idea - remember, Samuel Clemens said 'the only uniquely American criminal class is Congress', after all.

Your (and to be fair, other members of the board) 'if ya ain't fer us yer agin' us' rhetoric is frankly getting old. As is the implication that Dems are morally superior to Reps.

It seems that anything that praises Dems is above reproach in your eyes.

Anything that slams Reps is automatically true.

Don't you see that this ideological disorder threatens to put you on the same level as the Neocons? The Rush-quoters? That this is the same problem that infects religious organizations? The flaw that allows masses to be manipulated by unscrupulous people of all stripes?

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #258,597

by jb4

6/12/06 1:46:26 PM

Funny, I just searched for posts

where he condemned them in the same terms he just pasted lincoln's post. Funny, nothing

Nothing at all.

If fact, the two posts I did find posited that such outright lies [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=172177|are ok because it's "propaganda"] and that the Swifties [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=170287|had absolutely no connection with Bush] (which I'm sure was posted before we found out that the Swifties were funded by Rove's political organization...I'm sure without Rove's direct knowledge or consent.

So I guess if a Repo organization distributes negative information that are proven to be lies about Demos, that that's OK in BeeP's and your world, because it's "propaganda", while if Demos distribute negative information about Repos that is acknowledged to be factual, that bad, baaad, BAAAADD because it's "partisan crap".

I'm glad I don't live in your world. I couldn't afford the chiropractic bills resulting from all the whiplash.

Ad as far as supporting the "'if ya ain't fer us yer agin' us' rhetoric", I suggest you take up MM's advice and "read me in my posts". If you do, you'll find nowhere do I subscribe to the 'if ya ain't fer us yer agin' us' camp you ascribe me to. Politicians lie. Partisan politicians lie more often. The current crop of Repo partisans appear to lie more often, in a more institutionalized way, and with less remorse than do Demos currently. I do not believe it was always that way (c.f. post-civil war era)...but I wasn't alive then, so I can't be sure. And Sam Clemmens was right.

And to the "It seems that anything that praises Dems is above reproach in your eyes." crack. Just remember the other old saw: What's good for the goose is good for the gander". In my jaundiced view, I'm pleased that the Demos are finally showing some backbone, and standing up to the 6+ years of lie and innuendo that Der TurdBlossom has orchestrated. There is, however, one notable difference in their response from that of the Repos opening salvo: The Demos are responding with facts, a concept rather foreign to the current neocon cadre. Does that make me a blind Democrat apologist? Maybe to you, perhaps, but to the rest of the world, not hardly.

Post #258,649

by bepatient

6/12/06 5:27:20 PM

The list may be "factual"...but it is nowhere near complete

and while it focuses on dem congresscritters, it includes people like Rush as repo hawks.

In my opinion, that is done purposefully and that makes it "spew".

Give me a list of congressmen...PERIOD...or those running...and list their record. Then come to me with a list of Repo "hawks" in power.

Did the list give the military history of every asshole actor telling us how they are gonna move to Canada and their history??? No.

That list is "factual" only because it suits your agenda. The fact that I point this out seems to have pissed you off.

Oh well.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #258,655

by jb4

6/12/06 5:36:56 PM

List == spew; Swifties == acceptable propaganda; Nice!

Post #258,662

by bepatient

6/12/06 6:44:14 PM

I have no problem with this list being published

nor with the swifties being allowed to do what they do.

Both get equal protection as freedom of speech and each gets about as much of my attention from me as the other.

I have long ago given up trying to clarify to those here what "realism" is and so have given up trying to clarify whatever political agenda is invented for me by your reading and/or misreading of my posts.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #258,720

by imric

6/13/06 12:18:16 AM

Gee. Now I must be 'agin ye'

I do read you in your posts. All the time.

If you read me in mine, you'll see that I detest the lies of the Neocons.

Now I support them because I distrust Demos, too?

You are SO full of it. More of your spin, worthy of Rush.

Further, where does Beep condemn the site and say it's bad? Or worse than the swifties? He says it's incomplete.

And - you may be pleased at Dems standing up - So am I (they are the only real hope of getting rid of the bastards in office now) but you DO come across as a blind Demo fanboy. Enjoy it; you're not the only one here.

*shrug*

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #258,742

by jb4

6/13/06 9:44:59 AM

Yer not agin me...but to quote Dave Mason...

...we just disagree. (Which is one of the freedoms that they haven't yet abridged....)

Post #258,744

by drewk

6/13/06 9:51:39 AM

Yes they have

Try to run for office while disagreeing with the notion that the Woah on Terrah is the top priority for our representatives in Washington. Or disagree with the premise of a Creator. See how far you get in politics.

So if the only people allowed to disagree with those in power are those with no shot at power, are we really free to disagree?

===

Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]

Post #258,731

by bepatient

6/13/06 3:15:19 AM

Funny...I just reread the posts and the threads linked

and have no comprehension of how you get a defense of republicans...especially out of the second post and thread.

Oh well.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

Post #258,475

by admin

6/11/06 11:07:23 AM

It is skewed.

It's an intentionally skewed sample. If they listed ALL of the members from BOTH parties that served and let people make their own conclusions, then it wouldn't be.

I'm surprised you don't see that.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #258,477

by pwhysall

6/11/06 11:19:43 AM

What's with this military obsession, anyway?

Why not obsess about their financial acuity, or their world historical knowledge?

Or is this one of those "we'll get excited about things with catchy insults" things that the media is so enamoured of?

Post #258,484

by Another Scott

6/11/06 11:50:40 AM

It's the "Attack of Conventional Wisdom" syndrome.

"Conventional Wisdom" is that Republicans are stronger on defense and security issues than Democrats. Since we're at war, the only way Democrats can win, according to this simplistic view, is to be strong on defense issues. Having been a soldier automatically gives one the "gravitas" to put the Republicans on the defensive.

It's a symptom of the news-bite reporting of issues in the US these days. If something can't be reduced to 2-5 words (e.g., gay marriage, death tax, war on terror, family values, illegal immigration, amnesty for illegal immigrants, etc., etc.), it doesn't get covered even tersely in the popular press.

It's so much easier for reporters and editors to make a superficial presentation of the issues than take the time to get into the nitty-gritty features of the issues. And since, at least in the US, TV news often doesn't devote more than a couple of sentences to a story (gotta leave time for the ads and the promos for the other shows on the network), even if reporters want to cover more than sound bites the systems they work in won't permit it.

Why not obsess about their financial acuity, or their world historical knowledge?

Because conventional wisdom is that national security issues matter more than anything else right now.

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #258,492

by admin

6/11/06 12:47:13 PM

Yes, but more than just that.

Someone who hasn't been to war doesn't have the same perspective on what it means to put troops in harm's way; hence, "chickenhawks".

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #258,499

by pwhysall

6/11/06 1:12:00 PM

I don't buy that.

By the same token, the non-accountants in politics shouldn't be listened to on budgetary matters, the non-lawyers should be disregarded on legislative issues, and they should all be ignored on matters of foreign policy.

I'm not impressed by the "they have to have done it before they can be taken seriously when talking about it" because let's face it, how many of them know what an honest day's work is like?

Yet they're fucking about with the man on the Clapham omnibus on a daily basis - people whose lives are and always have been alien to them.

However, you must temper the above with the fact that I live in a totally different political atmosphere to you.

Post #258,505

by Another Scott

6/11/06 1:36:55 PM

OT: That *is* a better terminal emulator. Thanks!

Post #258,567

by tuberculosis

6/12/06 1:54:39 AM

8/21/07 5:53:59 AM

There's a reason most people who have served

in Iraq are coming home and running as Democrats. They KNOW the current plan/admin is hosed. They choose to try to change things and do someting else.

Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 05:53:59 AM EDT

Expand All History

Post #258,503

by Another Scott

6/11/06 1:34:45 PM

Yeah, but...

[link|http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks|Chickenhawks]:

Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person\ufffds youth.

I think the term came from the old Foghorn Leghorn cartoons in which a tiny young chickenhawk would attempt to drag Foghorn off for dinner. In that case, he was harmless. The term has morphed as indicated above.

It's sometimes used, though, to tar war supporters who didn't serve in the military as if military service is somehow a necessary prerequisite to having a valid opinion about it. That is, if someone was in the Army or Marines during a military conflict they somehow automatically have more credibility than someone who didn't. (E.g. I don't think Al Gore being a [link|http://www.snopes.com/military/goreviet.htm|reporter in Vietnam] gave him special insight on Vietnam or Iraq on its own.) I don't care for the term, or that line of reasoning, much myself. It's too much of an ad hominem for my taste. Good arguments should be able to stand up no matter who puts them forth.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #258,506

by JayMehaffey

6/11/06 1:40:33 PM

It should be a bit more narrow and important then that

Like most negative political terms "chickenhawk" is is flung around without much regards for what the word actually means.

Chickenhawk is more then somebody that never served in the military. It is supposed to mean somebody that is pro-military intervention but also went out of their way to avoid serving the military themselves. It is most meaningful for vietnam era people, the ones that went to great lengths to avoid the draft themselves but where at the time and/or are now pro-war.

Jay

Post #258,733

by Another Scott

6/13/06 8:00:47 AM

Tom Toles: 6/11/2006 Editorial Cartoon. 29 kB .img

Post #258,598

by jb4

6/12/06 1:53:10 PM

Of COURSE it's skewed. Consider it's source.

That's not the issue. The issue, for those of you just joining us, is that even though what was presented was factual, it was condemned by certain members of this august body because it was skewed in a way so as to shine a more positive light on members of one party at the expense of the other party more near and dear to said members of said august body. In the mean time, similar, and indeed more sinister distortions, that crossed the line from "skewed" into "damnable lies" were not so condemned by the same members, simply because said lies were promulgated by the more favored party of said members. Got it?

Post #258,608

by admin

6/12/06 2:26:53 PM

All this time...

... and you still understand Bill's position that poorly.

Bill is often seen taking the "side" of the Republicans because no one else does. There's no need for him to jump in the direction because you're all so busy doing it yourselves. Unlike you, Bill represents balance, not a single side.

Got it?

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #258,620

by boxley

6/12/06 3:40:27 PM

ya gotta remember republican balance to jb4

is tying a 100lb rock to your nutbag before skydiving and doing your political announcement at the same time
then he might consider it balance or evens, I forget which,
thanx,
bill

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 50 years. meep

Post #258,653

by jb4

6/12/06 5:34:16 PM

6/12/06 5:35:11 PM

bal\ufffdance, n.

bal\ufffd\ufffdance n.
[...]
2. A state of equilibrium or parity characterized by cancellation of all forces by equal opposing forces.
[...]

I suppose what Bill is doing may be to balance the otherwise leftist leaning debate among the members of this august group, but by no means does what he presents represent a balanced presentation. The fact that he presents a balancing perspective does not make his presentation itself balanced, by any stretch.

If by simply engaging in the rhetorical exercise of arguing the "devil's advocate" side is all that it takes to be branded balanced around here, then it may prove to be a worthy exercise. Wasn't that what Steve O'Connor's bot, Jerry Lee Cooper, was all about not too long ago?

However, I now understand what Faux News means when they claim to be "fair and balanced". I had always wondered how they could say that with a straight face....

Edited by jb4 June 12, 2006, 05:35:11 PM EDT

Expand All History

Post #258,656

by admin

6/12/06 5:45:01 PM

Whatever.

Get a grip.

Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."

Post #258,668

by jb4

6/12/06 7:07:21 PM

I think my grip is fine, thankyewverymuch....