Post #4,215
8/8/01 11:59:19 AM
|
That's the problem, isn't it?
"I have an equal right to say where its spent."
So does everyone else. And not all will agree on where to spend it. Especially if that spending is directed to religious organizations that some portion of the tax paying public object to. I know people who are rabidly atheistic and still donate 10 percent of their income (gross, not net) to Goodwill, American Cancer Society, etc. But, no religious charities get a dime.
All in all, I tend to think the separation of church and state was a rather good idea. It's my state, it's your state, it's our state. My church, your church, our church? Nope, sorry.
"When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
|
Post #4,220
8/8/01 12:33:54 PM
|
I think you missed something...
And I feel that I sometimes have to come to Bill's aide because he's the only one with guts enough to take on a pack of howling wolves like you (TM)... :-> I think you may have missed B's point, which is - when conservatives propose a social program, most so-called "liberals" (who are the talking heads we hear droning on the mainstream press) reject it outright because of the "strings" attached... When so called "liberals" propose a social program, these same talking heads/etc never question the purity of their motives or what strings are attached. Kind of scary when you think about it... So the modern so-called liberal thinkspeak is "only democrats (because most democrats are mindless followers and not true liberals) can be compassionate" since conservatives obviously cannot be compassionate... What kind of horse manure are they putting in Wheaties these days?
And us true liberals (which I define as a free thinking human being who wouldn't join any group that would have him as a member), sit around wondering who the hell wants my wealth re-allocated in any charity scam - religious or non? And that's what it is. Politicians spending other people's money to BUY VOTES. Hell, it's not even called "charity" anymore. It's an "entitlement"... I hate to be a funaddict about it, but don't you ever question the thinkspeak that you defend? You see, I'm a "tax paying public" too and I object most strongly to the reallocation of my wealth to get the politicians re-elected... No one ever has a poll about that now, do they?
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"Putting the fun back into funatic"
|
Post #4,231
8/8/01 1:45:00 PM
|
Really?
"When so called "liberals" propose a social program, these same talking heads/etc never question the purity of their motives or what strings are attached."
Universal Health Care.
|
Post #4,235
8/8/01 2:22:33 PM
|
Really... Notice the selective memory now?
It's like that never happened. If you read warmachine's post, he brings
up health care like it is entirely the republicans fault... And now so
does the press... Part of this is selective memory (like always, no
matter what the political affilliation), but part of it is revisionist
history...
[link|http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1996_jan-dec/1996_oct/1996-10-09_the_daily_collegian/1996-10-09d01-005.htm|http://www.collegia...9d01-005.htm]
Notice how the phrasing of this appears biased: "Clinton and the
Democrats had planned to rewrite health care and include a universal
health care plan that would cover everyone, said Mark Singel,
Pennsylvania State Democrat committee chairman.
The Republicans opposed this, saying universal health care would result
in government being too intrusive in the public's lives. As a result,
the Democratic universal health care plan stalled in the
Democrat-controlled Congress."
Note - in the "Democrat-controlled Congress", those heartless
bastards...
Damn, it had to be the Republican's fault. Clinton even used that in his
'96 campaign. Gore almost successfully in his 2000 run... Democrat
GOOOOOD, Republican BAAADDD. See my post below with link to the
Eisenhower clips... especially the issues that Ike was running on. Cut
the national debt, lower taxes, cut big government.... Heard any of this
before? What has been happening these past 50 years? Shouldn't someone
in some party have solved some of these issues at some time in the past?
To me it's all rhetoric.
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"Putting the fun back into funatic"
|
Post #4,283
8/8/01 5:09:37 PM
|
Really?
"When so called "liberals" propose a social program, these same talking heads/etc never question the purity of their motives or what strings are attached."
Universal Health Care.
It seems you aren't replying to my post so I re-posted it. Notice, I am not "warmachine". Reply to my post, not his.
You said that none of the "talking heads" question the purity of motive or the strings attached.
I seem to recall LOTS of questioning. If you'll also notice, it is NOT a reality yet.
|
Post #4,294
8/8/01 6:24:48 PM
|
Really
And I thought it was ASSUMED that I was replying to you, Brandioch, because I was linking to the '96 election spin on Clinton's Universal Health Care proposal during '93... What I was referring to by quoting Warmachine is that the revisionism has already happened, ie those awful Republicans. I think it is extremely important to remember that the House and Senate were Democratically controlled during the '92-94 session when Clinton tried to pass his health care reform package. You are saying that this is proof that the press is not biased (correct? ie, the package didn't pass)... I am pointing to this same event and saying that even foreigners have bad or selective memory (or no memory at all in this case) of what happened. How could he if he uses health care as an example of why Republicans are not compassionate... which is what this sub thread is actually about.
Getting back to your direct question, I remember "at the time" those questions (about purity of motive or strings attached) being asked by the press, the same way I remember the press asking hard questions about Clinton's sex life during the height of the scandal. What does history record now? An invasion of his personal life or the epitome of double standard and hypocracy? History is in the eye of the beholder. What I precisely am referring to is the spin... Katie Kouric and Bryant Gumball have an extra eyebrow raised whenever questioning Republicans. I didn't really notice it until I became an independent (as a result of 92-94 and the Clinton White House). That's the subtle part, the in your face part is the poll that showed over 90% of the journalists in this country are registered Democrats. I'd like to say that they were good enough to at least try to be objective.
What caught my ire, is the assumptions that one must make to say Republican does not equal compassionate... I don't assume that people are any certain way. I seem to remember from my Democratic days that STEREOTYPING is not a good thing... It's especially true to me as a true liberal.
In summary, I seem to recall LOTS of questioning myself and have noticed that it is NOT a reality yet... But is that a result of Republicans not being compassionate? Really?
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"Putting the fun back into funatic"
|
Post #4,337
8/9/01 8:17:09 AM
|
Really.
"You are saying that this is proof that the press is not biased (correct? ie, the package didn't pass)"
No. "The press" is biased.
Because "the press" is made up of individuals. Who work for companies.
What I'm saying is that you were incorrect in stating that the "talking heads" (can Rush be counted among them?) wouldn't care about any strings attached to "liberal" programs.
And Republicans can be extremely compassionate. Historically, they have been extremely compassionate to big business and less so to individuals.
Of course, we always end up back at Clinton's sex life.
Of course, no Republican has ever cheated.
Of course, no one has ever lied about sex.
Which is why the public didn't seem to CARE that much.
Yes, he lied under oath.
Of course, Republicans NEVER lie.
So, Clinton didn't do anything that hasn't been done over and over and over in DC and it's "The Liberal Press" that is going easy on questioning him.
And I believe Larry Flint proved that with his bounties on information regarding past sexual escapades by Republicans.
Of course, what the fuck does this have to do with the ORIGINAL statement? The one about "talking heads" never questioning the strings attached to "liberal" programs of which my universal health care was a counter example?
Let me see..........
Nothing?
You make a statement.
I provide a counter that disproves your statement.
You provide an example that "proves" your statement.
So, I say "all apples are red".
You show me a green apple.
I show you a red apple.
Do you see why my showing you a red apple is meaningless?
Feel free to obsess about Clinton's dick some more.
|
Post #4,366
8/9/01 11:24:38 AM
|
C'mon now...
...Universal Health Care was not implemented. Its motives were NOT questioned by Republicans. They weren't looking for strings. They (as well as most of the Democrats that were in control) questioned its proposed implementation.
And after it was done...noone made a concnerted effort to portray Clinton as an uncaring bastard who cares more for the HMO than he does for the uninsured children.
Sorry bud...this one won't play.
Um...er...well...
I have no choice!
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #4,388
8/9/01 12:44:13 PM
|
Well, you're right on one thing.
It wasn't implemented.
"Its motives were NOT questioned by Republicans." Yes they were.
"They weren't looking for strings." Yes they were.
"They (as well as most of the Democrats that were in control) questioned its proposed implementation." Okay, right on two things.
"And after it was done...noone made a concnerted effort to portray Clinton as an uncaring bastard who cares more for the HMO than he does for the uninsured children."
Ummmmm, wouldn't that be because Clinton was the one that was pushing for the uninsured children to have universal coverage?
He was pushing for coverage for children so he couldn't have been against coverage for children.
|
Post #4,390
8/9/01 12:53:02 PM
|
There is no argument so dubious
as.... "We're doing it for the children"
Of course if you're against whatever "x" is, you're anti-children and you just want to see them all die, right? (well, that's essentially the PR campaign after anything "for the children" fails.)
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
|
Post #4,414
8/9/01 3:03:56 PM
|
Well thats my point
Ummmmm, wouldn't that be because Clinton was the one that was pushing for the uninsured children to have universal coverage?
He was pushing for coverage for children so he couldn't have been against coverage for children. Press coverage of the Republicans have them as corporate mongers who have no regard for the "poor downtrodden masses"...even though they have proposed programs that would help...and those programs were not implemented. Besides...you seem to be putting the horse about 3 paces behind the cart on the questions raised about UHC. All of the Rep concerns that I heard were about removing choice from people in order to insure the uninsured. That is not a question of motive but rather a question of implementation. That and the fact that it created a huge federal infrastructure which goes directly against the conservative mindset of "smaller is better". Um...er...well...
I have no choice!
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #4,418
8/9/01 3:37:18 PM
|
Not that I want to get involved..but a timeline
that might be of interest.
[link|http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page2.html| link ]
|
Post #4,434
8/9/01 7:17:26 PM
8/9/01 7:25:03 PM
|
Heh, amidst the noise (then)..
Never so clear a portrayal of at least many of the significant events, and certainly: none of the info in real time re these (only now tranparent) tactics of the insurance-medico astroturf. (Not that anyone would have imagined there weren't such plans.)
Maybe this recap illustrates well enough, the utter poverty of the system we've allowed to entrench - the financing of all government members' election / reelection costs by the bottomless pockets of Corporate. Quid pro quo on *this* part which affects My company.. and *that* part which.. - - want reelection money next year, Bub er Bob?
Naive to imagine that non-Corporate funded counters to this system, amount to anything more than feelgood mental masturbation about matters beneficial to, "The Murican Peepul": a phrase already coopted by the minority in actual control. And it works! those blab phrases.
So we continue as the world's richest banana republic - descended from some of the wisest principles yet - all observed in the hype only. And often in the name of er Morality!
Goebbels would be proud to see how his Ministry of Propaganda has survived his death. (That was also about er 'Morality' too IIRC)
Oh well. It *was* a splendid dream - but who could have imagined! a Rush Limbaugh 'worth' $125M$ (even correcting for inflation) in 1776) ?
Ashton
(wrote 250M$ first, cache fault)
|
Post #4,423
8/9/01 4:49:53 PM
|
And the Republican's alternative was?
"Press coverage of the Republicans have them as corporate mongers who have no regard for the "poor downtrodden masses"...even though they have proposed programs that would help...and those programs were not implemented."
I don't recall any Republican alternatives that would have provided universal health care.
|
Post #4,425
8/9/01 4:54:20 PM
|
So doing something stupid is better than doing nothing?
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #4,436
8/9/01 7:41:12 PM
|
Unclear your referent -
Is the idea, universal health care deemed now and evidently, "something stupid"? despite its presence in the civilized countries of the world (all of whom are less wealthy that we, overall and per capita).
Or then do you mean: it would have been stupid for the Repos of both parties - to actually converge on a graduated solution? Or to make it real easy: test runs with time limits, as costs/benefits are observed and discussed? Or *some thing* signifying a direction and a beginning.
What we got: was 0 nada zippo. What we are unable to even debate in Murica is: why.. the insurance middle-man (Corp) is a Murican *necessity* - ever for there to be such coverage. Insurance welfare, no less. Tacitly accepted?
(Must I find the Insurance PAC - merely visible - amounts contributed, for this to be an er 'issue', or will the rough #s in the NPR summary do?)
A.
|
Post #4,438
8/9/01 7:48:59 PM
|
If I may quote Bill.
again...
"And after it was done...noone made a concnerted effort to portray Clinton as an uncaring bastard who cares more for the HMO than he does for the uninsured children."
And quote you:
"So doing something stupid is better than doing nothing?"
Now, how to convey the concepts.......
I don't know if I can.
Clinton's plan is not implemented, we still have un-insured children, but that's okay because the possible alternative MIGHT be stupid.
So, HMO's are making more money
-AND-
Children are still un-insured
That sounds like a great philosophy to me.
|
Post #4,469
8/9/01 10:47:19 PM
|
Earth to Brandioch
The entire point of this thread has been that even though Republicans offer programs...and these programs are rejected (with no alternatives offered by the Democrats...much like your UHC example)...the press and the DNC continue to portray the Repos as uncaring, unfeeling bastards who care more for corps than they do for people. (and you can read the post I initially responded to to notice that this campaign is worldwide...since they even have the brits thinking it)
In your UHC example that is akin to saying that Clinton is an uncaring bastard who cares more for HMOs than he does about insuring children.
However, you'll notice that that did not occur....because maybe...just possibly...one side doesn't play the same game as the other....as if you'd recognize or admit that fact.
Um...er...well...
I have no choice!
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #4,548
8/10/01 4:31:37 PM
|
Earth here, send transmission.
"In your UHC example that is akin to saying that Clinton is an uncaring bastard who cares more for HMOs than he does about insuring children."
Ummm, again, Clinton proposes a plan to provide such care and it doesn't pass so Clinton doesn't care?
I'm not seeing that.
Are you mixing your general and your specifics in this example?
Now, to help you out, if Clinton veto'ed a Republican plan to provide such care to those same children, you would be right.
Which is totally different from the original topic of "talking heads" and such.
But, so what?
|
Post #4,599
8/11/01 12:46:17 AM
|
I did...your decoder ring is set to the wrong frequency.
The republicans offer programs to help the poor. The democrats reject these plans. They then call the Republicans uncaring bastards with no regard for the poor.
The democrats offered UHC. The republicans rejected this plan. They did NOT...however call Clinton an uncaring bastard with no regard for the uninsured.
Any clearer and I'd have to stamp it on your forehead.
Um...er...well...
I have no choice!
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #4,625
8/11/01 12:40:19 PM
|
Message decoded.
Please confirm.
"The democrats offered UHC. The republicans rejected this plan. They did NOT...however call Clinton an uncaring bastard with no regard for the uninsured."
Clinton seeks to help uninsured.
Republicans seek to stop such help for the uninsured.
Republicans do NOT say Clinton has NO regard for uninsured.
------------Is that what you're trying to say?-------------------
The republicans offer programs to help the poor.
The democrats reject these plans.
They then call the Republicans uncaring bastards with no regard for the poor.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Why, those nasty Democrats. Have they no shame? Will they stoop to anything?
Would it be possible for you to name one of these programs that the Democrats have rejected and which they vilified the Republicans about?
Not that I would ever doubt your word.
|
Post #4,657
8/11/01 6:15:44 PM
|
Unfair..
The Republicans *are* compassionate, and are simply misunderstood. Their perennial inaction is perfectly reasonable. See -
Since words can be so easily misinterpreted - especially by the Liberal Press (all four.. three? remaining Press Corporations, that is) -
Naturally the Republicans do not wish to commit their compassionate feelings for the poor, to actual proposed legislation with words and clauses and ummm.. er funding.. and such small details.
(Call this a conservative prescience: someone would be *sure* to twist their words! So the best thing is not to propose anything in writing. Safer.. and we know how important safety is, when you are tryin to conserve everything. As much as you can get, 'to conserve', anyway.)
See? they really *mean* well, and it's mean of you - to put words in their clamped-shut mouths. Prove! they don't mean well. Show me in their detailed proposa--
Uh..
Never mind.
Ashton Congressional Record
enough words to reassemble any way ya want - as is most often done
|
Post #4,660
8/11/01 6:21:27 PM
|
look up
Um...er...well...
I have no choice!
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #4,665
8/11/01 7:13:19 PM
|
I see....
my ceiling and a spider web w/spider and my light.
Hmmm, so, you're saying that the spider is a metaphor for Republican compassion?
Not that I'd ever doubt your word.
|
Post #4,675
8/11/01 9:00:58 PM
|
block grants for welfare to the communities
Gingrich proposed and Clinton no noed. Gotta have that federal bj^H^Hoversight.
thanx,
bill
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
|
Post #4,873
8/13/01 1:15:50 PM
|
Wow, and you say that's not a straw man
Clinton seeks to help uninsured.
Republicans seek to stop such help for the uninsured.
By "help uninsured" do you mean the Universal Health Care part of the Clinton Health Plan that went to Congress? Because there were quite a few other things covered in that package. And even that part wasn't universally supported. There are still arguments raging over the effectivenss of the Canadian style of socialized medicine, so I don't think nationalized health care is a clear winner.
But even if a particular congressperson supported the particular form of Universal Health Care codified in the Clinton Health Plan, there could still be critical flaws in other parts of it that would cause the congressperson to vote against the package.
I guess I'd be tilting at windmills to even bring up the concept of a poison pill.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|
Post #4,881
8/13/01 2:17:24 PM
|
Re: Wow, and you say that's not a straw man
There are still arguments raging over the effectivenss of the Canadian style of socialized medicine[...] Boy, I'll say! One such aspect of this debate is the "effectiveness" of having Canadians paying something like 1/8th of the cost for a given prescription medication as Merkins do. I suppose that debate would be between the large 3 or so multinational pharmaceutical producers, and ...consumers? jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #4,891
8/13/01 3:21:32 PM
|
No, it'd be ...
From the people who have to wait until some bureaucrat decides you're "sick enough" for the procedure. Unless you're wealthy enough to just come to the U.S. and pay to have it done. But then socialized medicine would seem to be good enough only for those who can't afford to make their own decisions, which seems pretty much like non-socialized medicine anyway.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|
Post #4,520
8/10/01 12:01:26 PM
|
Red Herring
If the discussion was...
Clinton: "Insure the children" vs Republicans: "No plan at all"
...you might have a point. But you said the Republicans had no alternative to "Universal Health Care" and Universal Health Care, at least as proposed by Clinton was about a lot more than just about insuring children. That's the point to wish I said (by making the reverse point sarcastically) that no plan is sometimes better than a bad plan.
In other words, equating opposition to Clinton's plan as opposition to insuring children is a strawman argument that attempts to dodge the issue with an emotional ploy
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #4,522
8/10/01 12:03:52 PM
|
Red Herring part 2
Not to mention that the Clinton health care plan was developed behind closed doors in secret meetings, against the law.
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
|
Post #4,523
8/10/01 12:08:37 PM
|
Hmm...behind closed doors....
Sort of like Cheney's energy policy?
|
Post #4,524
8/10/01 12:13:56 PM
|
Doesn't bother me too much in this case...
...as I'm more objecting to the logical bait-and-switch than the particulars
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #4,553
8/10/01 6:13:15 PM
|
Narrowing the focus.
"But you said the Republicans had no alternative to "Universal Health Care" and Universal Health Care, at least as proposed by Clinton was about a lot more than just about insuring children."
Yep, but that was the example I used.
Yep, there was more to it than just children.
But children make such an easy emotional target.
"That's the point to wish I said (by making the reverse point sarcastically) that no plan is sometimes better than a bad plan."
Ah, but is that true in this specific instance?
"In other words, equating opposition to Clinton's plan as opposition to insuring children is a strawman argument that attempts to dodge the issue with an emotional ploy"
Yes and no. It is an emotional ploy. It is not a strawman. And it doesn't dodge the issue.
Universal Health Care was proposed. By a Democrat (I can't say "liberal") and defeated.
The Republicans have not offered any counter plan.
Children are still uninsured.
Again, the easy emotional tie is that CERTAIN PEOPLE are INSENSITIVE to the NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN.
While CERTAIN OTHER PEOPLE are CARING about the NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN.
Of course, in theory, a bad plan could be worse than no plan.
But this is the real world, not a theoretical construct.
So, in theory, does not apply.
Actions and results are all that matter.
Those poor, poor children. *sobs*
Who will care for those poor, poor children? *sobs*
|
Post #4,379
8/9/01 12:18:43 PM
|
swung left and had scabs on it :)
Our bureaucracy and our laws have turned the world into a clean, safe work camp. We are raising a nation of slaves.
Chuck Palahniuk
|
Post #4,398
8/9/01 1:51:21 PM
|
Watch out now, you may just get this moved to
the Flame Forum... Sorry, I forgot who I was dealing with... we'll go point by point
this once...
You write:
No. "The press" is biased.
Because "the press" is made up of individuals. Who work for companies.
To which I have already said, 90 percent of those individuals are registered
Democrats...
What I'm saying is that you were incorrect in stating that the "talking
heads" (can Rush be counted among them?)
wouldn't care about any strings attached to "liberal" programs. First, no Rush can no longer be a talking head, because they are only found
on television (hence the term "talking head"), Second what you are
saying is that it is your bleeding opinion that I am incorrect in stating the
talking heads wouldn't care about any strings attached, because neither you nor
I have at this point of our debate, adequately determined who they are or if they
would or wouldn't care. Now have we? I think they (UPI and AP)tend to not ask as
many hard questions about motives or strings attached to other Democrats, seeing as how
they are mostly Democrats (fact) and there is a strong probability that their personal
biases would get in the way of them being "fair" to non Democrats...
And Republicans can be extremely compassionate. Historically, they have been
extremely compassionate to big business and less so to individuals.
Unless, of course, those individuals are SLAVES.... Unless you want to revise
that history too? Dumb cheap shot... You
know it too...
Of course, we always end up back at Clinton's sex life.
Yep, just to piss you off.... How in the fsck did you get that: I said: I remember the press asking hard questions about Clinton's sex life during
the height of the scandal. What does history
record now? An invasion of his personal life or the epitome of double standard
and hypocracy? I am using that as an example to prove that the press did jump all over Clinton
when the scandal first hit (bolstering your argument ;-> ), but then they
slacked off. In fact, depending on whether you are a democrat or a republican,
you would see this as an invasion of his personal life or the epitome of a double
standard... I couldn't care less about his dick... You're the one who seems obsessed
with it...
Of course, no Republican has ever cheated.
Of course, no one has ever lied about sex.
Which is why the public didn't seem to CARE that much.
Yes, he lied under oath.
Of course, Republicans NEVER lie.
So, Clinton didn't do anything that hasn't been done over and over and over
in DC and it's "The Liberal Press"
that is going easy on
questioning him.
And I believe Larry Flint proved that with his bounties on information regarding
past sexual escapades by
Republicans. Not only strawmen
but an insult to any thinking person...
Of course, what the fuck does this have to do with the ORIGINAL statement?
The one about "talking heads" never
questioning the strings attached to "liberal" programs of which my
universal health care was a counter example?
Let me see..........
Nothing? To which I humbly admit that my syntax may have been a tad better had I said
rarely question as opposed to never... My bad... I stand corrected...
You make a statement.
I provide a counter that disproves your statement.
You provide an example that "proves" your statement.
So, I say "all apples are red".
You show me a green apple.
I show you a red apple.
Do you see why my showing you a red apple is meaningless?
Feel free to obsess about Clinton's dick some more.
Talk about meaningless strawmen, you provided dick squat....other than your
usual tiresome didactic rhetoric. Your counter was weak, at best, and I'm talking
about the frigging apple, not it's color... You can't prove to me or anyone
with 100% certainty that the press is NOT biased any more than I can prove
with 100% certainty that it is... No matter how many times you and a room
full of likeminded sheep chant "four legs good, two legs bad" it just
don't make it so... So if I am full of shit, you must be too... So where's the
argument? Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"Putting the fun back into funatic"
|
Post #4,440
8/9/01 8:14:13 PM
|
And the part you're skipping over.....
"To which I have already said, 90 percent of those individuals are registered Democrats..."
And they work for editors, who work for the owners. And those owners (fewer and fewer each year) are conservative.
"First, no Rush can no longer be a talking head, because they are only found on television (hence the term "talking head"),"
I'll disagree.
"Second what you are saying is that it is your bleeding opinion that I am incorrect in stating the talking heads wouldn't care about any strings attached,"
Well, I count Rush as a "talking head" and he was against Clinton's plan.
"because neither you nor I have at this point of our debate, adequately determined who they are or if they would or wouldn't care."
True. The same as "the press".
"I think they (UPI and AP)tend to not ask as many hard questions about motives or strings attached to other Democrats, seeing as how they are mostly Democrats (fact) and there is a strong probability that their personal biases would get in the way of them being "fair" to non Democrats..."
And you are free to believe that. I, on the other hand, don't see that.
"Unless, of course, those individuals are SLAVES.... Unless you want to revise that history too? Dumb cheap shot... You know it too..."
What are you talking about?
"Yep, just to piss you off.... How in the fsck did you get that: I said:
.......Clinton's sex life....."
Ummmm, from your post where you specifically mentioned "Clinton's sex life".
"I am using that as an example to prove that the press did jump all over Clinton when the scandal first hit (bolstering your argument ;-> ), but then they slacked off."
So, "the press" jumped all over a sensationalistic story about a Democrat. As you said, this bolsters my point.
Eventually, the story was not "new" anymore and it was left to Starr to rabidly pursue it.
I'm not seeing your point, except that your facts seem to support my position.
"In fact, depending on whether you are a democrat or a republican, you would see this as an invasion of his personal life or the epitome of a double standard... I couldn't care less about his dick... You're the one who seems obsessed with it..."
Strange, you brought it into this conversation, but I'm the one obsessing?
Again, your point is eluding me.
"Not only strawmen but an insult to any thinking person..."
Nope. These are the reasons the story wasn't much of a story after the first few months.
IT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE.
The press didn't let up because they were sympathetic to a fellow Democrat. The press let up because they got the story. Politician has extra-marital sex and lies about it. The novelty just isn't there.
"To which I humbly admit that my syntax may have been a tad better had I said rarely question as opposed to never... My bad... I stand corrected..."
And when we move to that statement, well........it depends upon what each person defines as "rarely". How many examples would I have to provide to counter the rarely? Would it then become "uncommon"? Why would that be worth the effort I put forth?
"Talk about meaningless strawmen, you provided dick squat...."
That's your opinion. You made a statement, I provided a counter. You then defined "talking head".
Hey, this isn't Bryce, is it?
"...other than your usual tiresome didactic rhetoric."
Yep, but at least mine is supportable without re-defining terms.
"Your counter was weak, at best, and I'm talking about the frigging apple, not it's color..."
Nope. In the example, it was the color.
"You can't prove to me or anyone with 100% certainty that the press is NOT biased any more than I can prove with 100% certainty that it is..."
Again "the press". "They" are biased. No, neither of us can prove anything about "the press".
But that's not going to stop you from making statements about them, is it?
"No matter how many times you and a room full of likeminded sheep chant "four legs good, two legs bad" it just don't make it so... So if I am full of shit, you must be too... So where's the argument?"
Gotta love that logic.
"So if I am full of shit, you must be too..."
You're the one obsessed by Clinton's dick and your fantasies about "the press" and what "they" believe. So I must be also.
Whatever.
|
Post #4,400
8/9/01 2:02:24 PM
|
and by the way... Really. ;->
Just a few thoughts,
Screamer
"Putting the fun back into funatic"
|
Post #4,437
8/9/01 7:44:23 PM
|
My memory is not selective in this case
I support universal health care.
I was enthusiastic when I heard that Clinton was going to create a universal health care. I remained enthusiastic until I actually had a chance to read said plan.
I did not and cannot see myself supporting anything like that monstrosity.
Cheers,
Ben
|
Post #4,249
8/8/01 3:34:07 PM
|
Oh please....
...noone questioned motives...EVERYONE...including Clinton's own supporters in Congress questioned its proposed implementation.
Um...er...well...
I have no choice!
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #4,380
8/9/01 12:19:49 PM
|
Now what was it that whacked this thread?
We've seen the ill results of pre elsewhere, but what clobbered this thread?
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
|
Post #4,439
8/9/01 7:56:56 PM
8/9/01 8:07:18 PM
|
Bill Oxley's Aleut browser again, or mine: Admin?
That is:
No way for me to separate out his'n and mine - even via "Show One Reply Only" (because that includes his too - it's first reply). And that feature appears Not to work anyway - no matter if refresh direct: it never shows just selected post and one more. For me in NS 4.5
And I used no pre in my post; didn't check source - but Bill usually doesn't play HTML games anyway. Zope? Alaskan whale oil or karmatic aberration? Thought this was an xact umm 'science'.
A.
Later:
The Source - theory
My [a href] with a long titlename + the long address.. might be culprit. Remember that EZ er 'split, wrapped' some of the humongous URLs? Does Zope? Izzat it?
Ashton
Systems Analyst - MCSE grade
Cum Laude: 3 clicks/second
|
Post #4,441
8/9/01 8:14:48 PM
|
That's not what "Show One Only" means
I should probably reword that. It means, show the selected post only (ie. one of the replies -- should be Show One Post Only).
I'll take a look to see where the HTML is farked.
Regards,
-scott anderson
|
Post #4,443
8/9/01 8:18:54 PM
|
No, I don't need to reword it.
It says "Show One Comment Only".
*poke*
Regards,
-scott anderson
|
Post #4,445
8/9/01 8:21:38 PM
8/9/01 8:26:48 PM
|
That's what I thought it meant:
but selecting that, waiting for reload (which already means.. it went on down the list) - I don't ever see "the one post selected" - ONLY.
I'll try various combos of selecting that option, before and after selecting The Post of interest..
I think it's Code Red.
Tried:
"Show one comment only" appears only After one selects a post (and its little cheeldrun tag along). Select "SOCO" and: no difference! Just reloads entire thread - in fact, down to THIS one which I am editing)
A.
|
Post #4,448
8/9/01 8:50:08 PM
|
Yes, Show One Comment Only is in comment view only
When you click it, and it reloads all of the posts again, does the link change to "Show All Replies"?
Regards,
-scott anderson
|
Post #4,450
8/9/01 9:34:41 PM
8/9/01 10:06:31 PM
|
WebWasher filter! Again - as with login.
Tried it twice! this time with WW off:
First time the "purple=read" link stayed same.
Second - turned to blue=unaccessed yet.
THEN: toggled to show proper "showall" AND indeed truncated at that post.
{sigh} Maybe need to hit that link again, add to 'good guy' WW list. Sheesh - security IS a PITA; ya gotta tell it every Little thing..
Sorry 'bout false alarm - I'm just a MCN
(Nemesis)
|
Post #4,460
8/9/01 10:10:51 PM
|
Hmm, sounds like a cache issue or something.
Very odd.
BTW, I'd prefer that you add new posts as opposed to editing to clarify things. Keeps a better trail of what was going on, and I tend to ignore edits because I expect that they're usually typos and the like.
Regards,
-scott anderson
|
