Not a single mention of this critical citizen event in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. They should be ashamed. And this is the “liberal media” the NeoCon hacks rant against?
(videos no longer available)
Comments are closed.
Copyright © 2024 | MH Magazine WordPress Theme by MH Themes
Thanks for appearing on cue NeoCon hacks!!!
The current recession is directly tied to Iraq Occupation spending according to a Nobel Prize-winning economist:
“The present economic mess is very much related to the Iraq war,†says Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist. “It was at least partially responsible for soaring oil prices. …Moreover, money spent on Iraq did not stimulate the economy as much as the same dollars spent at home would have done. To cover up these weaknesses in the American economy, the Fed let forth a flood of liquidity; that, together with lax regulations, led to a housing bubble and a consumption boom.â€
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/opinion/23kristof.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
People’s Pup,
Here is some information about the Bush Administration’s ‘hard work’ of suppressing the truth about global warming, which has only convinced brain dead loyalists and FAUXNews junkies. The entire legitimate scientific community has almost completely unified around the facts that global warming is taking place and that human activity is contributing to that fact. The only studies that claim otherwise are funded by oil companies and publicized by the oil barons who have been occupying our White House.
~~~
What the Government Doesn’t Want You To Know About Global Warming
Submitted by davidswanson
By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!
JUAN GONZALEZ: Dr. James Hansen is widely regarded as the leading climate change scientist in the country. It was his testimony to a Senate committee in 1988 that first brought the threat of global warming to the world’s attention. For the past quarter of a century he has headed the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA’s premiere climate research center.
Just over a year ago, Dr. Hansen went public with a charge that made headlines around the world, that the Bush administration had been trying to silence his warnings about the urgent need to address climate change.
AMY GOODMAN: You may have heard Dr. James Hansen mentioned before on Democracy Now! His name has been cited by many guests on the show.
JOHN PASSACANTANDO: This government, at the behest of its oil company contributors, has been told not to put out information about global warming, not to allow the scientists to talk about their expertise with the press, about the connection between global warming and hurricanes. That happened at NOAA. There’s been pressure on Dr. James Hansen at NASA.
PAUL EHRLICH: I think it’s true that attitudes have changed slightly in the White House, because they now see a political issue, but they have worked very, very hard to suppress the science on global warming. For instance, they sent some junior jerk to try and keep Jim Hansen, who’s one of our very top climate scientists, from saying what he thought.
CHRIS MOONEY: Apparently, a NASA aide was instructed to interfere with Hansen’s ability to do press interviews. Actually, this completely backfired, because Hansen is not someone to be told to be quiet. And so, he just went to the media anyway, and it ended up exploding.
TIM FLANNERY: Can you imagine what it would be like for one of the world’s leading scientists, who is revered by everyone, to have this pipsqueak who lied about his credentials controlling what he tells the public? Just appalling. And, you know, the countries around the world would — I don’t know what they’d pay to have the advice of a Jim Hansen. It’s the sort of stuff we all desperately need. And here, in a country that actually pays him a salary and allows him to do his work, he is silenced. I mean, I honestly cannot see the sense of that. I can’t see who benefits.
AMY GOODMAN: That last speaker was acclaimed Australian scientist and writer Tim Flannery. Well, today, Dr. James Hansen himself joins us in our firehouse studio. His story of how the Bush administration tried to silence his warnings on climate change is detailed in a new book. It’s called Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming. It’s written by author Mark Bowen. He joins us from a studio in Watertown, Massachusetts.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Dr. Hansen, 1988, talk about the significance of that time.
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, I think it had become clear that the climate was changing and that human-made greenhouse gases were a reason for the long-term trend in the climate. And I just wanted to draw that to the attention of the public, because we really need to do something before the climate change becomes large, just because of the inertia of the system. If we wait until the climate change is large, then it’s too late to stop it from happening.
AMY GOODMAN: So, what did you do twenty years ago?
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, I just reported that the world at that time was getting warmer, and I expected 1988 to be the warmest year in the period of instrumental record, which it did turn out to be, and that humans were primarily the reason for this long-term warming trend.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And, of course, that was twenty years ago, and while the Bush administration has gotten a lot of attention for its failure to heed any kinds of warnings, there was another administration before that, the Clinton administration, as well. And I think Bowen talks in the book about some problems that you had with Al Gore and — could you talk about how the Clinton administration reacted to some of the warnings you raised?
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, my concern is general with both Republican and Democratic administrations. They both feel that they can control what scientists say to the public. So their offices of public affairs in the science agencies are headed, in general, by political appointees, and they review the press releases before they go out. So, it doesn’t really make sense in a democracy. The public should be honestly informed. And then, of course, the publications are allowed to make the decisions, and they don’t have to follow exactly what the science says. There are other considerations that they have. But they shouldn’t influence what is presented, the scientific evidence. And I object to that, regardless of which administration is in power.
AMY GOODMAN: So, before we go on to the Bush administration, where you did have the most trouble, can you talk about what happened during the Clinton years and how you were able to express or not your research?
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, the one particular event that stands out in my mind is when I wrote a paper called “Global Warming in the 21st Century: An Alternative Scenario,” in which I emphasized that it’s not only carbon dioxide, but other climate forcings — methane and black soot — and we need to address those also. And for some reason, the people in the White House didn’t like emphasis on the non-CO2 parts of the story, and I just — the press release just kept coming back, and I would try to change it, they would change it, and finally I gave up. I just couldn’t get a press release through the way I wanted it.
JUAN GONZALEZ: So, in essence, in these kinds of press releases, there’s a back-and-forth, as the White House or the environmental people at the White House —
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Yeah.
JUAN GONZALEZ: — edit your press releases?
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Yeah. And that’s another strange thing, because they don’t even admit that it’s going to the White House. You know, it goes to NASA headquarters, and then it sort of disappears for a couple weeks. And where is it? Well, it’s very often at the White House, and I mentioned that. And now, they tried not to make that known, you know? And that’s, again, something that’s very inappropriate, in my opinion. And again, it’s happened in both administrations.
AMY GOODMAN: So let’s talk about what happened when the Bush administration came in. You were continuing to do your research. First of all, explain your place of work and the significance of NASA Goddard.
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, NASA is important, I think, because of the global observations that we make from satellites. We see what’s happening, for example, on Greenland and then West Antarctica. My laboratory is also involved in the global models that try to interpret what’s happening. And we’re also located at Columbia University, where we have the opportunity to work with people who have the data from the history of the earth over thousands and millions of years. You put together these different things — the satellite information, the information on how the earth responded in the past when greenhouse gases changed and other things changed, and the models — and then you get a picture of how the system works.
And that’s what really concerns me, because it’s the inertia of the system which tells us we’re already pushing it, so that it’s going to respond more over the next several decades. There’s a lot more climate response which is already in the pipeline, that we haven’t seen it yet, and that’s why we have to have an understanding of what’s happening, so we can take the actions now before it’s too late.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Of course, the speech of yours that got even more attention was then in December of ’97 — was it? — when you also then raised again the sense that you were — not only that the planet was reaching the tipping level in terms of the dangers of greenhouse emissions, but also, shortly afterwards, you started getting the articles appearing in the New York Times and other places about the direct attempts by the government to silence you.
DR. JAMES HANSEN: 1997 — I think you mean —
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’m sorry, 2007.
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Yeah, 2006, I believe. I gave a speech in December of 2005 at the American Geophysical Union meeting, in which I tried to connect the dots. And the dots extend all the way to the role of special interests in confusing the public, you know, in not allowing straight scientific discussion of what’s happening and what’s causing it.
And, of course, the main problem is fossil fuel use. And the truth is, we cannot put all of the fossil fuel — the carbon dioxide from all the fossil fuels back into the atmosphere without creating a completely different planet. The last time that carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere, there was no ice on the planet. It was a completely different planet. And we have to realize we either are going to have to leave a lot of the fossil fuels in the ground, or else we’re going to have to capture the carbon dioxide when the fossil fuels are burned. And that just is not well understood, and the fossil fuel companies would rather that you didn’t understand that.
AMY GOODMAN: Who are those special interests, those fossil fuel companies that you’re talking about?
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, it’s —
AMY GOODMAN: How do they stop the conversation?
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, it’s the coal industry, and it’s also the oil industry. And they — you know, they put out disinformation, they fund a small number of scientists, and they expect the media to give you a balanced story. And by “balanced,” they mean that the scientists are saying that something’s happening, it would have to balanced by someone saying, “Oh, this is just natural.” You know, and even though the story has become very clear — you know, it’s 99.99 percent certain that humans are influencing the climate — but still, they make the story appear much less certain than it is, and therefore, why should we take actions as long as it’s uncertain?
AMY GOODMAN: Mark, well, thank you very much for joining us from Massachusetts. Why did you choose to take this on as the topic of your book?
MARK BOWEN: Well, actually, I was going to write a — I was hoping to write a book about Jim, anyway, back in 2005, back in the fall of 2005. I was actually talking to an editor about doing that, and — because he’s been the person who has explained why the climate is changing now for about thirty years. He played a big role in the first book I wrote called Thin Ice. And so, I was just kind of amazed when all of a sudden he made the headlines there in the New York Times at the end of January 2006. And I actually waited about a month because of a funny kind of arrangement I had with my editor where he was supposed to contact Jim first, but then, at the end of February, I called Jim and sent him an email, and he responded within, it turns out, about twenty minutes and said, “Sure, let’s do it.” And so, I’ve been trying to keep up with him basically now for about two years, as I tried to write this book, as he continued to just move along at this breakneck pace you see.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And in your book, you talk quite a bit about what was going on in the Bush administration in reaction to Dr. Hansen’s statements and viewpoints. In some of the clips that we ran, people kept referring to this young “pipsqueak” or this political appointee. Talk about Michael Deutsch [sic], the young man right out of college, and his efforts to muzzle Dr. Hansen.
MARK BOWEN: OK, his name is George Deutsch.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’m sorry. George Deutsch, yes.
MARK BOWEN: He was a twenty-four-year-old political appointee. He was in an unusually senior position for a person of his experience or lack of experience. He had come straight from the Bush-Cheney war room for the reelection campaign. As it turned out, he had neglected to graduate from college, although he had put that on his resume. And according to the person who hired him for this post, he told her also that he had graduated from college, point blank.
But it’s not really true to say that he was the person who squelched Jim Hansen. He was acting clearly on orders from the top two or at least the second-in-command of public affairs at NASA at the time, a fellow named Dean Acosta, who is the assistant — I don’t know, they have complicated names — assistant — deputy assistant administrator for public affairs. And Mr. Deutsch — Mr. Acosta was working in concert with people from the Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Science and Technology Policy within the White House.
The way that it played out, because they were so cunning about doing it, was that all the standard media outlets could pin it on was this young man. The New York Times, for instance, left it at that. And so, in my book, I go into fairly complete detail about exactly what was going on, because they were very consciously not leaving a paper trail, telling people not to send emails on this issue, and trying to keep it all — they would often — they would hold meetings where there would be generally two senior political appointees and one career NASA person, so there would be no witnesses at the NASA person’s level. And then that person would be told not to put anything in writing and not to send emails about it, only to communicate by telephone and voice or in meetings. But this George Deutsch, unfortunately, he was kind of young and inexperienced, and he did leave an email trail, and that was part of the reason that the New York Times even printed the story, was because there was at least some evidence of a documentary sort. It’s not true that it was just George Deutsch doing it.
AMY GOODMAN: So here was this young man, George Deutsch, who you had to go through, you had to get approval for to do your interviews with the public, with reporters; is that right, Dr. Hansen?
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, yeah, after my talk at AGU, I was told that I had to have prior approval to speak to the media. And for a few days, I followed that procedure, and they did disallow me to speak to National Public Radio, for example, and they sent a substitute instead of me. And then NPR decided they didn’t want to do the interview. And there were a couple of other cases like that. But then I decided I wasn’t going to let this continue in the long run, and so that was when I contacted other media and Andy Revkin wrote an article for the New York Times.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Dr. Hansen, last year you testified at a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Also called to testify was James Connaughton, the chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. This is some of what Connaughton had to say.
JAMES CONNAUGHTON: Well, I want to start, as I indicated, of having the highest personal regard and professional regard for Dr. Hansen and his work. My son and I were just watching him on TV last night on the History Channel.
Congressmen, senior administration officials, highly accomplished senior scientists, we all chafe at having to talk to our public affairs people, but the public affairs people are there for a reason. They’re there to organize and be sure that what we are saying is official government policy, is understood, and that the people who might have to then respond to those statements can effectively do so. I mean, this is a process that’s been with us for a long, long time, and it works well. Now, we all chafe from it. I can understand Dr. Hansen especially chafing if it comes from someone relatively young and inexperienced. But the policy of public affairs is a very important one.
Now, I would note that I am not aware of any instance where any scientist in pursuing their science, of any scientist in seeking peer review of their science, was in any way controlled, handled or otherwise managed in their scientific work. I mean, from what I see all over the world and with people coming to me, scientists come and speak their mind to me, they come and speak their mind to you. What we’re talking about is a science policy interface, and that has significant implications that require some level of management.
AMY GOODMAN: Prior to his confirmation as chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Connaughton worked as a lobbyist for the mining, chemical and utilities industries. Dr. James Hansen, respond to what he has to say.
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, the point is that scientists should be able to give the results of their science. And this — both in the case of testimony to Congress and in science that is presented to the public through the media, it makes no sense that it should be censored by the White House before the scientist is able to speak. I mean, what is the rationale by which the White House can review and change testimony to Congress before it’s given? I mean, that’s — there’s no rationale. And our democracy assumes that the public and Congress is well informed.
The story that I was told when I was asked, why do I have to have my testimony reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in the White House before it’s given to Congress, and they said, “Well, your testimony needs to be consistent with the President’s budget.” I mean, it doesn’t make sense.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Mark Bowen, I’d like to ask you, in that clip we had of James Connaughton, he was also — the White House Council on Environmental Quality, his staff particularly, were the ones who also edited immediately after the 9/11 attacks the press releases from the EPA about the health and safety situation that the public was exposed to, and an IG report later made clear that the White House had downplayed inappropriately the health risks that people faced. In your research on Dr. Hansen, to what degree is this a widespread practice throughout the Bush administration, in terms of how they deal with science and the putting out of science information to the public?
MARK BOWEN: It’s everywhere. It’s all over the place. Right after Jim went public there in late January, there was a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco, and the Union of Concerned Scientists organized a little side meeting, which was completely filled, just overflowing with scientists from all over the government, telling similar incidents.
And at that meeting, David Baltimore, who was the — well, he was president-elect of the association at the time, he said that he wasn’t surprised. Every time he heard a new incident, he wasn’t surprised to hear it. He said it was the result of a theory of government, and he was talking, of course, about this kind of imperial presidency, the unitary executive, that sort of thing. And I have — there’s a chapter of the book entitled “A Theory of Government that We Must Vociferously Oppose.” That’s a quote from David Baltimore’s speech.
We don’t — it would be boring to go into the litany of public agencies, everything from the Fish and Wildlife Service to the EPA to the FDA, that have experienced similar control of scientific information.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn to Philip Cooney, the former chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. He also testified at that House hearing last year. He was questioned by Representative Henry Waxman, the chair of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Mr. Cooney, you had a senior position at the White House, but there were officials in the White House who were more senior to you. Your immediate boss was James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Was Mr. Connaughton aware of your role in proposed edits for climate change reports?
PHILIP COONEY: He knew that we were reviewing reports as they came in ordinarily from OMB for review.
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Did he personally review your edits?
PHILIP COONEY: No, not most —
UNIDENTIFIED: Mr. Chairman.
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Did you discuss —
UNIDENTIFIED: Mr. Chairman, his boss is behind him and is available.
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Yeah, excuse me, but I have the time. I didn’t interrupt you. I waited ’til you were finished, then I interrupted you. Did you discuss the edits with him?
PHILIP COONEY: No, not ordinarily.
REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Did he give you any instructions about how any of these three documents should be edited?
PHILIP COONEY: No. He understood that my objective was to align these communications with the administration’s stated policy.
AMY GOODMAN: Philip Cooney had come from the American Petroleum Institute, worked at the White House until 2005, and then left to return to a familiar haunt, taking a job as a corporate issues manager with Exxon Mobil.
Mark Bowen, talk about the email trail and the documentation you have of Philip Cooney, of James Connaughton, of how the White House censored the reports.
MARK BOWEN: Well, first of all, it’s very clear that James Connaughton was playing a very definite role in editing those reports. His name is all over it. Even Karl Rove is involved at one point.
AMY GOODMAN: How?
MARK BOWEN: Not so much in the report, but in — actually it was in — early on, I think it was — well, when Christie Whitman was still the administrator of EPA, she was very embattled, because she was actually in favor of doing something about global warming. It became known — and this is what caused Philip Cooney to lose his job — it became known that the CEQ, Council on Environmental Quality, was editing a climate subsection of a report on the environment by EPA. When that went public, a disgruntled EPA employee brought it public, there was, of course, a major response by the White House. It was at that time that Karl Rove became involved, actually, and encouraged and helped Philip Cooney figure out how to respond to the media.
But, yeah, the email trail is quite clear that not only was Philip Cooney, James Connaughton — there was a fellow named William O’Donovan [Kevin O’Donovan], I think he was. He was a special assistant to the Vice President on domestic policy, who also left the government to go work for Shell shortly thereafter, who was involved. And they were exchanging emails on a regular basis with people from Exxon Mobil, from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and so on and so forth, in which they were — you know, they were kind of these funny, joking emails in which they were poking fun, calling people names, including calling Jim Hansen names, and figuring out responses to these discomfiting things that were coming up in the media. But the whole policy was very clearly worked out by this kind of gang of people.
And I think this — in that same hearing in which Philip Cooney was being — was testifying with Jim — by the way, there’s an amazing picture that I’ve received from the New York Times with Jim Hansen holding his hand up, with George Deutsch on one side of him and Philip Cooney on the other. That was how Jim testified at that hearing.
There was a Democratic congressman from Kentucky named Yarmuth, who revealed that the staff members from Waxman’s committee had gotten access to a whole bunch of communications between the Council on Environmental Quality, Philip Cooney and the Vice President’s office. And he read from one of them. It became clear that there was a lot of communication going on on a regular basis with the Vice President’s office. And what this prompted was a lawyer from CEQ to stand up, and basically there was about a fifteen-minute discussion. James Connaughton also stood up — this is while Philip Cooney was testifying — and made it clear that the committee was not allowed to use that information because they were invoking executive privilege to keep any communications with the Vice President off the record. But there’s a lot of evidence somewhere, and Mr. Yarmuth very slyly managed to get it into the record. What he did was he read from a hand transcription of an email that one of his staffers had been allowed to look at but not use as part of the record and hearing.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And, James Hansen, when all of this was going on — you’re a career scientist — what your fellow scientists in NASA and other parts of the government, what was their reaction to — one, to the advisability of you standing up and how they felt about it, as well as to how they acted when this kind of censorship or muzzling of their viewpoints was occurring?
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, I think a discouraging thing is that people have come to accept this, to expect it, you know, and I think we have to strongly object to this. It’s interesting that — the thing you just showed, where Philip Cooney said, “Well, I was just aligning the science to fit the policy.” Well, that’s — that’s just nonsense, I mean, if they can make their policy decisions without following exactly what the science — where it might make you go because the executives have other sources of information and various things they’re trying to do. But they shouldn’t change the science itself. But they’re doing that on a widespread basis, and we have to object to that. But, of course, scientists are, you know, concerned about our job and do not easily object to it, but I think that we have to do that.
AMY GOODMAN: You met with Vice President Dick Cheney?
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Yes, I spoke with the six cabinet members on the Climate and Energy Task Force that the vice chairman — the Vice President was the chair of in 2001.
AMY GOODMAN: And what did you tell him?
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, at that time, we made clear that the climate was changing because of human-made changes in atmospheric composition and that carbon dioxide was the primary cause of that, but there were other gases also that affect it. And we tried to give an indication of the kind of scenario for the future that we’re going to need to follow if we’re going to avoid disastrous climate effects over the next several decades.
AMY GOODMAN: And what was the response?
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, the response, frankly, was the withdrawal of the US from any agreements for addressing the global climate change problem. And we’ve —
AMY GOODMAN: You mean pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol?
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Yes, for example, and not — and again going more after more fossil fuels, rather than alternatives such as improved energy efficiency for future energy needs.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And in terms of some of your analysis about the road ahead out of this growing crisis, the both immediate and long term, what do you see as some of the key things that our government, as well as other governments around the world, need to do?
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, the most important thing is — if you just look at how much carbon dioxide there is in the different fossil fuels, coal is the really big issue. The important step is to have a moratorium on any new coal-fired power plants until we have the technology to capture the carbon dioxide and sequester it. And if we would do that, that’s a good fraction of the solution. But we’re also going to have to use the other fossil fuels more conservatively. We’re going to need to emphasize energy efficiency. And eventually we have to find sources of energy that don’t produce greenhouse gases.
AMY GOODMAN: I’m just looking at a piece in the New York Times from a few days ago by Andrew Revkin that said, “Dr. Hansen “and eight co-authors have drafted a fresh paper arguing that the world has already shot past a safe eventual atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, which they say would be around 350 parts per million, a level passed 20 years ago,” Andrew Revkin writes. This is controversial. “Some longtime champions of Dr. Hansen, including the Climate Progress blogger Joe Romm, see some significant gaps in the paper” — still in draft form — “and part ways with Dr. Hansen over whether such a goal is remotely feasible.”
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Well, yeah. Unfortunately, Joe feels that we have to talk about what’s practical. I think we have to look at the science and tell us exactly what it — and tell the people exactly what it is pointing to. And the history of the earth tells us that even 385 parts per million is too much. And we can still go backwards. The ocean does take up carbon dioxide. If we would phase out the use of coal, except to recapture the CO2, then it is feasible to get back below 350 parts per million. But we’re going to have to put a stop on new coal-fired power plants until we have the technology to capture the CO2.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see that happening with any of the candidates right now, what they’re proposing?
DR. JAMES HANSEN: I think it could happen. I think — I haven’t seen either — any of the candidates say we’re going to have a moratorium on coal-fired power plants. But they’re beginning to say things to recognize the problem. So I think it’s possible, but no one has exactly stated that.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I mean, it seems that in terms of the reaction of many of the candidates to the increasing crisis in terms of supply of oil is that they’re looking at either — at nuclear energy or increased coal use to sort of deal with trying to get the country more energy independent, rather than the long-term prospects of actually having more efficient use of energy and reductions in terms of our society adjusting dramatically to a different use of energy in the future.
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Yeah, and they’re saying things like, “Well, we will reduce by 2050 the CO2 emissions by 60 percent or 80 percent,” but they really need to have a specific strategy, and that, I do think, has to start with coal. If we would phase that out — oil — we’re going to hit peak oil very soon, if we haven’t already.
AMY GOODMAN: Which means?
DR. JAMES HANSEN: Which means that we have used half of the oil that’s readily available. And so, the amount — the emissions from oil are going to start to decline just because the supply of oil is limited. So that’s why coal becomes the issue. Now we’re starting to use more and more coal, and we just can’t do that unless we have the technology to capture the CO2.
AMY GOODMAN: How dire is the situation right now?
DR. JAMES HANSEN: It’s becoming dire, because we have to start within the next few years on a track — on a different track. We have to realize that we have to get to energy sources beyond fossil fuels, and we need to do that sooner. The fossil fuel companies want you to believe that, well, let’s use up all the fossil fuels, and then we’ll worry about what we’re going to do after that. Unfortunately, we can’t do that unless we capture the carbon dioxide.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Mark Bowen, this is your second book on the issue, Censoring Science, this, your latest. What were you most surprised by in your research for this book?
MARK BOWEN: Would you mind if I just responded a little bit to the Joseph Romm comment that you mentioned earlier?
AMY GOODMAN: Yes, go ahead.
MARK BOWEN: I think if you actually read his remarks, he doesn’t part ways significantly with Jim. I don’t think Andy really got that right. He’s agreeing very much with Jim’s analysis. I think Jim is right in saying that he doesn’t think that what Jim is proposing is politically feasible, but he follows the logic of Jim’s arguments very well. And, in fact, there’s one way in which — well, we don’t have to get into details, but anyway — so I don’t — I think at least Joseph Romm is certainly agreeing with most of the logic of what Jim is saying.
Well, what I found most shocking? I’ve said this a couple times. I think what was most shocking was, first of all, the widespread corruption. It was just everywhere. It was all over the top echelons of NASA. And that’s a little shocking, really.
I think — you know, I was talking to a — I gave a talk a couple weeks ago, and there was a science teacher from Burlington, Massachusetts, which isn’t far from here, who told me that when she saw Al Gore’s movie — or she showed it to her kids in her class — she’s an elementary school science teacher — they were — the most interesting thing they saw was the incident where Jim was actually censored by George W. Bush’s father in 1989. They found that amazing. They were astounded by that. I’m not too astounded by it, because I was aware of that. But in this administration, it’s just everywhere, and that was a little shocking.
The next thing was just the arrogance of it, the ineptitude of it. They were caught because they didn’t do it even remotely well. And what that really translated into was just stupidity. I mean, didn’t they know they were going to get caught? Didn’t they realize that ultimately — you know, most of the people in NASA — everybody, really, except the political appointees, is honest, experienced, good at what they do. I was very impressed with them.
Also, the Republican staffers on Sherwood Boehlert’s committee — you know, at the time that Jim went public there in January 2006, both houses of Congress were Republican-dominated, and it was a Republican committee chairman of the House Science Committee who went after NASA on this when Jim went public, and his two staffers, David Goldston and Johannes Loschnigg, who did the investigation for Mr. Boehlert, also were extremely good at what they did, very honest, and were shocked at what they saw.
So, you know, most of the people in government — I was actually very inspired by most of the people I met in government. It was just this cabal up at the top who were just shockingly corrupt and shockingly arrogant and therefore stupid, really.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Mark Bowen, author of Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming, and Dr. James Hansen, himself — for the past twenty-five years, he’s headed NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies — thank you so much for joining us.
Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program, Democracy Now!
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/32220
“Pure nonsense and too easy to refute.”
But then you make no effort to find any examples to refute what I said, do you?
“non-existant [sic] global warming”
So… science has no meaning to you? Please bear in mind that there are over a hundred peer-reviewed scientific studies that conclude that global warming exists and that human activity is a contributing factor. They only differ in the degree to which global warming is progressing and whether or not it will be reversible and how much longer we have to reverse it.
There are studies that refute those findings, but non are peer-reviewed to my knowledge and I am highly suspicious that they are funded by the heaviest contributors to the pollution that is adversely affecting our environment.
The oil industry is one of the largest contributors to the news channels where you most likely get this information. If you are getting it straight from the government over the last seven years, bear in mind that our government has been led by oil industry lobbyists, loyalists and stockholders Cheney, Bush, Rice, et al.
“What I am saying is that this Administration in particular has not lifted a finger in any way over seven years to help out individual citizens. Every decision has been favoring corporate interests and big money cronies.”
Pure nonsense and too easy to refute. What programs has he cut or has not increased spending? Ever consider that tax cuts help out individual citizens?
“What Hennepin County (my county) is handing over to Carl Pohlad to build the new Twins stadium should be a loan with interest. On principle I would have let the Twins be shut down or move before voting for any tax increase that really amounts to “billionaire welfare” for the Pohlads. That said… I am glad we are getting a new stadium and glad the Twins are staying.”
Clearly this has nothing to do with Bush, as it should be. These are state and local decisions.
“You are for “hands off” free market. It is clear that if you were to get your way – and that is where we are heading right now in many ways – every labor advance over the last century: 40 hour work week, safety measures on the workplace, medical benefits, maternity leave, severance pay, you name it – is threatened.”
And where does this fall under the Federal Government’s responsibilities according to the Constitution? Safety measures to a degree, but as someone who has put many a year working in industry, there are a great many regs that need to be lifted. But most everything you mentioned falls under “benefits” that a company offers employees as a way to lure them in or keep the ones they have.
“Free market is free only for corporations, big business and banks, it is not free for the workers – nor for the consumer.”
Wrong. Those workers have a choice, they can leave a job, find another more to their liking, or they can even try their own hand at starting a business. You keep acting as if corporations are entities that have never had a small beginning, that no man created that grew into a big company. They are all like some alien power from another world to you, that must be fought.
The consumer also has choices to be made. Of course they are mostly limited by what those big evil corporations can produce.
“It always amazes me how devotion to a word: “Free” can guide so many people to vote and debate against their own interests. I could give away “free cyanide-laced soda pop” and many would take cases and give it to their children it would seem. That is what we are doing if we pretend unfettered free market capitalism is in our best interests – destroying our children’s future.”
And what I fear for my children is a country where life, business, even their health care, is guided and controlled by suits in Washington.
A recent example. Remember last year when the dems were so upset about high gas prices, and they were going to investigate the obscene profits by
big oil? Apparently they found nothing. Now gas is even higher and we hear not a word from them….other than someone in Washington who knows better than all of us, who wants to raise taxes on gas by 50 cents a gallon…. to decrease gasoline usage and save the world from the non-existant global warming. He says it will help people cut back on driving. Hmmmm. and how will people like me get to work? We don’t have mass transportation out in the rural areas. Only thing he would do is cause more hurt to people.
Mark,
You are the first person I have debated with on this site in over 2 years who has actually backed up their entry with links and sources.
Wow! An actual intellectual arguing for the Right! I didn’t realize that you existed! There may be hope for conservatism after all!
😉
One quick story.
My friend who sold me my current home also purchased two duplexes as rental properties a few years back. He did the math and realized that with the huge increase in taxes, insurance and other expenses, it would be a better business decision to let the properties go into foreclosure, stop paying his mortgages and just collect the rent from all four tenants for the year it would take the bank to conclude foreclosure.
Since he comes from a farm family and has almost unlimited borrowing power from the family bank in southern Minnesota, his credit rating has no bearing on his decision.
He told his lenders (he very specifically had borrowed from outside lenders for this risk investment rather than his family bankers) that they could re-negotiate his mortgages on both properties or just have them back. They know how difficult it is to sell duplexes and that in this market they may sit for years so he is in the driver’s seat. He really doesn’t care what they decide to do. It is a win-win situation. He will have gotten far more out of the properties than he put in – especially since he will collect rent for about a year without paying the mortgages as the foreclosure process drags on and costs the bank thousands of dollars to pursue.
Just thought that was an interesting sidebar to this discussion.
Me? My first house, which I bought for $38,000 ten years ago and own outright, is worth bout $125,000 and I make $780/month in rent. Call it the beginning of an idiot’s retirement plan.
Opening up by quoting Milton Friedman is a great way to make obvious that you are about to lay out a very conservative perspective on the topic – thanks for making that clear from the outset.
“Free Market” only works with governmental oversight, restraint and intercession and legal & political support for labor organizing, otherwise Americans would still be working 16 hour days, 7 days a week for slave wages and no benefits. Like any “ism”, “free market(ism)” is a very, very bad idea if left to run unfettered. With total unrestrained free market policies, America would be a third world country within a generation – unless a violent revolution or total worker revolt changed that course.
“These factors then affected roughly 25 percent of the U.S. population because they had credit scores lower than 620. ” Or were black, any other minority or a woman – but that is another topic entirely.
“what corporate entities AND citizens in trouble need is to bear the full consequences of their own bad decisions, and for the government to stop manipulating the market and inviting future disasters.”
I agree that there needs to be a balance. My issue is very specific to this Administration which consistently favors the corporate or banking entity over “the little guy”. Since the money they are working with, as you state clearly, is ours to begin with, the decisions should favor “us”. Just as in the way money was dispersed after Hurricane Katrina: the rich got richer and the poor got f***ed.
The money isn’t actually ours. All the money brought in by the IRS doesn’t even cover the INTEREST on the debt we owe the Federal Reserve Bank, but that is also an entirely different topic. You may be interested in the 45 minute online movie “Money as Debt” that I just posted yesterday on my blog:
http://impeachforpeace.org/blog/?p=283
I was not confused and I did not ever say that individuals should “compensated” for their misfortune. What I am saying is that this Administration in particular has not lifted a finger in any way over seven years to help out individual citizens. Every decision has been favoring corporate interests and big money cronies. The mortgage crisis is just one more example. Bear Stearns made their choices, they suffer for those decisions and are in line to get taxpayer dollars to continue their bad business. It was the same thing with Northwest Airlines locally in Minneapolis: bad business led to near collapse, the CEOs and other top execs finalize a mega-million dollar golden parachute just before finalizing bankruptcy – all with the blessing of the feds – the airline goes back to doing bad business (rewarded for doing so), their customer service drops precipitously and the restructuring leaves nearly half their employees out of work and the rest forced to accept sixty cents on the dollar for doing their same jobs.
Just to be clear that I am consistent… I am a huge baseball fan – have been my entire life. Yet I was against a taxpayer subsidized baseball stadium. Those who are in line to profit directly from the stadium should foot the entire bill. What Hennepin County (my county) is handing over to Carl Pohlad to build the new Twins stadium should be a loan with interest. On principle I would have let the Twins be shut down or move before voting for any tax increase that really amounts to “billionaire welfare” for the Pohlads. That said… I am glad we are getting a new stadium and glad the Twins are staying. I wish all professional sports teams were publicly owned like the Green Bay Packers so the extortion threats wouldn’t be possible and kids could grow up supporting the same teams their parents and grandparents did. Again – a tangent, but it makes my position more clear to you, hopefully.
You are for “hands off” free market. It is clear that if you were to get your way – and that is where we are heading right now in many ways – every labor advance over the last century: 40 hour work week, safety measures on the workplace, medical benefits, maternity leave, severance pay, you name it – is threatened. Free market is free only for corporations, big business and banks, it is not free for the workers – nor for the consumer. I want some of my tax dollars (or wherever the Fed gets their money) to go to protect workers and consumers from greedy, corrupt, morally bankrupt profiteers who would love it if they could simply chain their workers to their desks like in some sweat shop in East Asia and feed them just enough to keep them alive until they are physically unfit for further use and then they are kicked to the curb. Dick Cheney comes to mind.
It sounds like you are for free market in which corporations and big business entities have free reign to maximize profit without any concern for the worker, the environment, the national economy, national security or any other factor. I am for a fair market in which workers’ rights and needs are honored and protected and the best interests of the nation and the world at large are paramount. We may never agree, but at least our positions are more clear. You’ll probably bristle at what I just said, but without governmental restraint corporations become monstrous – even anti-Christ horrors in the damage they inflict upon people and the world. The last century is full of examples of this.
I highly recommend the movie: “The Corporation” for an excellent perspective on this.
The primary role of our government is to protect its citizens “foreign and domestic”. The domestic threat of unfettered capitalism is just as real as the threat of foreign military or any terrorist attack, disease epidemics, environmental disaster or a fascist or military takeover from within our government. We may be on the verge of experiencing the sharp end of that threat economically. We are in a recession – certainly spurred on by nauseating overspending and under-revenue gathering by the mis-leadership of the self-proclaimed “fiscal restraint” party while they have been in power over the last seven years and have had at least two of the three “houses” for most of the last few decades. Wherever we are heading economically, the GOP and the conservative movement can take full responsibility for it, they have had the reins for years.
Soon they will be screaming: “tax and spend Democrats!” from every rooftop as it is looking like we will have a Democratic Party majority in both houses come November and at least a 50-50 chance a Democratic President taking office next January as well (if election fraud doesn’t steal a third consecutive Presidential election – but AGAIN, I digress). Somebody has to clean up this financial mess and “tax and spend” toward a balanced budget beats “spend and spend and spend and spending” into eternal debt – up one side of the street and down the other. Our bridges are falling, our health care system is a mess (46th in the world in infant mortality rate), yet our military spending is far greater than the combined military budgets of all other nations in the world. To what end? We are the world’s bullies – a virtual rogue nation taking whatever we want from whomever we want at the behest of our corporate overlords at whatever cost to our military families, foreign families, our economy and our reputation around the world.
With an Administration completely focused upon streamlining the profit process for its cronies to the detriment of every other national concern, it is no surprise we have been attacked by terrorists on their watch and so many other domestic issues are suffering from chronic neglect.
I also had an attorney prepare everything and read it to me when I bought my home – buying it from a friend so we shared an attorney. I read most, but scanned everything. Buyer beware, of course, but almost nobody reads it all. It would be better if trust between borrowers and lenders were reestablished and reinforced by strong consumer protection laws, just as the restoration of trust between our citizenry and the federal government is a national priority after (at least) seven horrible years of covert, shamefully inept and destructive governance.
It always amazes me how devotion to a word: “Free” can guide so many people to vote and debate against their own interests. I could give away “free cyanide-laced soda pop” and many would take cases and give it to their children it would seem. That is what we are doing if we pretend unfettered free market capitalism is in our best interests – destroying our children’s future.
Sorry, it got cut off due to a ‘code’ character. Here’s the footnotes again. If the moderator would like to fix this, be my guest. Thank you.
Footnotes:
[1] welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [ME wel faren, to fare well] Source: American Heritage Dictionary (Welfare in today’s context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.)
[2] Friedman, Milton and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement, Harcort Brace Janovich, 1980, p. 2-3
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
[4] Subprime lending is the practice of extending credit to borrowers with credit characteristics – e.g. sub-620 FICO scores – that disqualify them from loans at the prime rate (hence the term ‘subprime’). As subprime loans are more likely to go into default, lenders charge a premium rate to compensate for the added risk. http://www.wikinvest.com/concept/Subprime_lending
[5] “What Actually Caused The Subprime Foreclosure Crisis?”
http://www.foreclosuredataonline.com/blog/foreclosure-crisis/what-actually-caused-the-subprime-foreclosure-crisis/
[6] “Networks Still Don’t Get Foreclosure Stats Correct”
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20071115172051.aspx
“The Associated Press, which was accurate, reported one foreclosure filing for every 31 households – which is not the same as saying ‘one in every 31 homes is in foreclosure,’ because foreclosure is a process.
There may be as many as three foreclosure filings for each individual home in the foreclosure process. Each stage of filing is counted as ‘foreclosure activity,’ so a single home could potentially be counted three times – a distinction the media often do not make.”
In addition to the aberrations above, on March 7, 2008, CNBC’s Erin Burnett told the NBC “Today” show that “we had about 8 percent of homes in this country right now are in the foreclosure process.”
The New York Times also referenced the MBA statistics in a March 7 article, saying the association “reported Thursday that loans past due or in foreclosure jumped to 7.9 percent of the total in the fourth quarter.”
[7] “Delinquencies and Foreclosures Increase in Latest MBA National Delinquency Survey”
http://www.mortgagebankers.org/NewsandMedia/PressCenter/60619.htm
[8] “Morgan in talks to quintuple Bear Stearns offer”
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/morgan-talks-quintuple-offer-bear/story.aspx?guid=%7B16FAD7CE%2D7A04%2D4115%2D9081%2D47B14B378FEA%7D
Forgive my bluntness, but I’m going to break this all the way down, not to sound snobbish or condescending, but for the benefit of your other readers and to give them and you a more thorough understanding of the way our free market economy functions, and the responsibilities of the Federal Government in relation to it. Portions of this document touch upon very complex subjects that have been, are currently, and will be, debated in Universities forever more, so in an attempt to make it as clear as possible, it is a bit lengthy. My apologies for that.
Feel free to clip this out and post it independently on your site so all of your visitors can benefit from it. Perhaps it will alleviate some of the worry you are exhibiting regarding the state of the current housing market. Footnotes are added for references within brackets ([]) for ease of reading and clarity, and links to sources can be found there.
The Preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America begins with: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare[1], and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
That’s it. Nothing about basic and non-basic industries owned by the people, or the role of the Government in the markets. Milton Friedman once stated that economic freedom is a necessary condition for the creation and sustainability of civil and political freedoms. He believed that this economic freedom can only be achieved in a market-oriented economy, specifically a free market economy:
“economic freedom is simply a requisite for political freedom. By enabling people to cooperate with one another without coercion or central direction it reduces the area over which political power is exercised.”[2]
A free market economy is the one system that leaves everyone free to rise by his own efforts. The history of the free market provides countless examples of people who improved their lives through work and ability. For instance, there are millions of immigrants who came to America and worked their way up to the middle class — or higher – due solely to a free market economy and endeavor. On the other hand, bad decisions can lead to ruin.
Also, it is important to note that most Americans feel that the right to private property is a natural right, as argued in the works of John Locke.[3]
As that as the groundwork, I shall move on to the subject of the current “housing crisis,” and what the Federal Government’s role is in relation to it. There are many cases in which it is in an investors’ interest to foreclose, but I will be dealing only with the subject of foreclosure related to subprime lending, as the other cases are outside the scope of this discussion.
Foreclosure Dataonline explains “The Growth of Subprime Lending” very well:
“When lenders realized there was market demand and provided a supply to meet that demand, subprime lending[4] was born. At that point in time, bankruptcy and consumer proposals were widely available, the economy was in a state of flux and consumer loan debt was on the upswing. Moreover, traditional lenders became extremely cautious and started turning potential customers away in droves. These factors then affected roughly 25 percent of the U.S. population because they had credit scores lower than 620. Candidly, people with low credit scores became a large potential market for subprime lenders.
“It should be obvious that those described above represented prime targets for lenders willing to assume additional risks. Lenders began to utilize a variety of techniques to offset the extra risks they were taking by financing those who were less credit worthy.
“Subprime loans were initially made with higher interest rates to offset lender’s risks. These higher rates plus compounded late payment fees resulted in higher overall returns for the lenders. Borrowers of subprime mortgage loans were mostly in the same below 620 credit score category. They frequently had poor credit histories including delinquencies, charge-offs, judgments and even bankruptcies. These individuals would have been unable to obtain traditional fixed long-term mortgages. Other subprime borrowers included people who didn’t have legal immigration status. Statistics indicate that 26 percent of all mortgages written between 2004 and 2006 were subprime, compared to just 9 percent between 1996 and 2004. That totaled some $600 billion in high risk mortgage loans or one fifth of he U.S. home loan market in that year.”[5]
Despite egregiously exaggerated reports about foreclosure statistics in the media[6], less than one percent of all mortgages nationwide are in foreclosure. The rate of loans entering foreclosure in the last quarter of 2007 was 0.83 percent, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA). And “the percentage of all loans in the foreclosure process was 2.04 percent of all loans outstanding at the end of the fourth quarter.”[7]
2.04 percent is of course very high, but many people do not realize two key factors that could help reduce that number: 1)Those in good standing can, in many cases, refinance. Depending on the interest rate of your new loan, your monthly payments might be reduced, allowing you to keep your home and pay less monthly. You can explore refinancing with your existing Lender as well as with any Lender of your choice. And 2)A “Special Forbearance Plan”: This option may provide for a temporary reduction or suspension of payments, that will be increased at a later point to repay the delinquent amount over a specified period of time, allowing you much-needed space to sort out your finances and follow your routine life. This is particularly helpful for those who are suffering a temporary financial crisis, like a job layoff, or a costly life expenditure.
Sometimes just a minor readjustment in the lending schedule or other such changes can be enough to halt an ongoing foreclosure proceeding and allow you to keep your home. If only more people knew about these – and many other – options, perhaps the “panic” would be less, and the markets would remain a bit more stable. (That’s just my opinion, though.)
The proper role for government in a market economy remains controversial, and especially in circumstances such as the current “subprime meltdown.” Many different perspectives exist as to how strong a role the government should have in both guiding the economy and addressing the inequalities the market produces. In regard to Bear Stearns, the Fed opted to step in early and provide as much as $30 billion in loans, secured against Bear’s risky assets. If the assets turn out to be worth less than the loans, the Fed – i.e., the taxpayer – bears the risk. So we were both right, it’s not technically a bailout if Bear’s assets can cover the loans, but if they can’t, we get soaked.
As I write this, Bear Stearns and JPMorgan are frantically renegotiating their original deal (which may be as high as five times the original agreement)[8], which may lead to a stalled offer, or even a collapse of the deal. So I am reluctant to go any further with this train of thought until the deal is approved or denied by the Fed. Sorry, I’ll have to get back to you on this one.
I’m not quite sure how you got confused before, but I’ll go over it once more just so we are on the same page; You stated “the Bush Administration bails out the lenders and the banks but ignores the plight of the individual citizens” to which I replied (talking about the individual citizens – this I think is where we parted company) “it’s not the responsibility of the government to bail out everyone who makes a bad decision…And if you make a bad decision and lose your shirt, I shouldn’t have to foot the bill.”
In other words, you suggested the individual citizens should be compensated for their misfortune, and I said I don’t want to pay for it. In my personal opinion, regarding government “bailouts,” what corporate entities AND citizens in trouble need is to bear the full consequences of their own bad decisions, and for the government to stop manipulating the market and inviting future disasters.
And you also asked “Did you read every word on every document you signed?” Yes. Every word. And if I don’t understand something, I have my Lawyer explain it to me. I even read those EULA things you have to agree to when you install software. And I suggest that you read every contract you sign, too, if you don’t (which you sound like you don’t do from the tone of the question). You can get in a lot of legal trouble if you don’t.
I hope I have cleared up your concerns about the way our free market economy functions, the state of the current housing market, and the role of our government in helping out individual citizens. And again, I implore you, read all contracts before you sign them.
-Mark Logan
Footnotes:
[1] welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [
“And if you make a bad decision and lose your shirt, I shouldn’t have to foot the bill”
BUT THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT!!! YOU ARE FOOTING THE BILL ON THE CORPORATE AND BANKING BAILOUTS!!!
Why are you so supportive of government bailouts of corporate entities but not in favor of helping citizens in trouble? I am not saying the government should bail out every citizen financial error, but in this era of absolutely zero federal oversight of anything corporate it is disgusting how this predatory lending is allowed. It was a set-up in which people who had no business being given loans were given loans that were destined for failure by jacked up interest rates in the 4th or 5th year of the loan. And you support it!!!
Don’t try to pretend that you read every word of every document you sign. Have you ever bought a house? Did you read every word on every document you signed?
It is the magic of conservative (corporate wishes before citizen needs) politicians to get people to vote against their own interests. They are not working for you! They are working for corporate interests. They couldn’t care less about you.
I understood your run-on explanation and I am sure that occurs in many cases, but I am sure that a large percentage of the foreclosures are on homesteads. I think one of us should do the research. Who has time?
“And I agree with the Pup that much of the loss occurring in the housing market is on second, or even third homes.”
So now you are going to quote an unsubstantiated claim without taking the time to research it? Oh boy… I can’t argue with made up “pretend facts”. Send me some statistics please. I’ll be waiting…
~~~
“I hadn’t realized you went there and talked to every Iraqi. You must be tired.”
No need to go down that pithy road. I thought we were trying to have a mature debate? No Mark… I read sources not embedded with corporate media and not constrained by Pentagon orders. I read journalists from many other countries. The American media is largely compromised and cannot be trusted covering the Iraq occupation. Earlier on this thread I quoted statistics from polling that has been well circulated in the press. Look it up. Check out the award-winning documentary film: “No End in Sight” or any of the dozens of independent reports from Iraq. Nobody outside of the White House press corps is trying to pretend we are welcome in Iraq anymore, it just makes them look foolish.
Mikael Said: “We are unwelcome there. We are alien occupiers. We are hated more and more each day we stay.”
I hadn’t realized you went there and talked to every Iraqi. You must be tired.
You are ignoring every comment any of us makes, then claim what we say is fantasy. I really don’t understand why it is so hard for you to grasp that it’s not the responsibility of the government to bail out everyone who makes a bad decision.
It’s not the Federal Government’s money. It’s our money. And if you make a bad decision and lose your shirt, I shouldn’t have to foot the bill. Libs are always talking about fairness, but then pull this same type of argument out when people screw up. How exactly is it fair that I must pay for your mistakes? Or you for mine?
http://www.pointsouth.com/csanet/greatmen/crockett/crocket2.htm
Read that to understand how the whole “charitable donations” attitude has pervaded into today’s Congress.
And I agree with the Pup that much of the loss occurring in the housing market is on second, or even third homes. I don’t have a link handy at the moment, but a basic grasp of economics and 30 minutes of the Fine Living Channel will give you an idea of what we are talking about. Why do you think shows like “Flip This House,” and “Real Estate Confidential” are on the air? They specifically target people who buy homes, fix them up a bit, and then flip them.
If you suddenly realize that you can’t make the payments on the fixer-upper you just bought, well, forget it – it’s easy to default on the loan, and let the bank get stuck with the house. Then the bank suddenly has a bunch of homes they can’t sell, because the construction guys are building tons of new homes, because they have been seeing all these houses getting bought and figure they need to build more. But then none of the homes sell, and the builders can’t build any more houses, so they lay off their labor, and there is a spike in unemployment.
I know that was a messy, run-on sentence, but it was the only way I could explain it succinctly and still get my point across (I hope).
Here is today’s news:
Barrages hit Green Zone, gunmen kill seven
Paul Tait
Reuters US Online Report Top News
BAGHDAD (Reuters) – Baghdad’s fortified “Green Zone” came under repeated rocket or mortar attack on Sunday, and police said up to 11 people had been killed by rockets falling short outside the government and diplomatic compound.
The attacks were part of a wider increase in violence in the capital and in the northern city of Mosul, underlining warnings by U.S. military commanders that recent security gains in Iraq are both fragile and reversible.
In the past, the U.S. military has blamed such attacks on the Green Zone on rogue elements of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al- Sadr’s Mehdi Army militia. Sadr has imposed a ceasefire on the militia, but there have been signs that it is fraying.
(etc.)
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Barrages_hit_Green_Zone_gunmen_kill_03232008.html
It isn’t going to get any better, ever. We are unwelcome there. We are alien occupiers. We are hated more and more each day we stay.
Pup,
My named is “Mikael”, not “Michael”.
The election was lost in Florida in 2000 largely due to the illegal voter ‘caging’ of 90,000 voters – largely African-American – mostly in Dade County. You can ignore the facts if you want, but the facts are confirmed now.
Here is the true story of the 2004 election theft in Ohio:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
Don’t try to write if off because of the publication. The problem is that very few major corporate media sources will touch anything about the facts of the stolen elections. Read the article and debate it on its merits.
“Many of the lost homes were not people so much as people buying homes cheap hoping on turning a profit. ”
Where do you get this idea? Give me some evidence please rather than innuendo. Many families have lost their homes and my point is that this administration does nothing to help families and everything to bail out the predatory lenders. Don’t try to challenge this with fantasies pulled out of mid-air.
Predatory lending must be stopped. Why do you so easily side with the bankers and lenders who, with their fine print, jacked up percentages far beyond what borrowers could afford. Did you read every word when you bought your home? We need our government to protect us from white collar criminals like this. Bush, being a white collar criminal, will never do that for us.
So what is your understanding of Iraq? You say you’d be happy to compare, but offer nothing except that claim. I have made abundantly clear what my position is. What is yours?
Remember that this is not a war. This is an occupation of a sovereign nation. This is imperialism. This is empire building. Check out history to see how the Roman empire, the British Empire and other empires turned out. It is horrible policy to occupy another nation by force. It never turns out well. It always spurns nationalistic revolt and acts of revenge upon the occupiers. We are the Romans in israel, we are the British in Northern Ireland. We are unwelcome. Thinking we are acting in Iraq’s best interests is a fantasy.
You speak opinion as fact Michael. Facts are that the so called stealing of the 2000 election is a fallicy. It was “redone” many times, using the same rules that Gore sought, and he lost every re-do except one. Losing by 200,000 votes in Ohio certainly doesn’t even come close to qualifying as a stolen election.
Yes, some lost homes recently, because of poor decisions on their part. Many of the lost homes were not people so much as people buying homes cheap hoping on turning a profit. It is not, nor should it ever be, the role of the US govt to keep people from being hurt by their own bad decisions. I do not agree with the fed coming to the aid of Bear Sterns, though I can understand the reasoning.
As for Iraq, I will put my understanding of the situation there against yours any day. You not only post opinions as fact, you seem to have no sense of history. Your friends talk of the tragedy of 4,000 lost lives taking over a country when it is not that far back in history when it was not uncommon for the US to lose over a thousand in one battle. Could Iraq been done better? Yes. Still, it is a remarkable achievement when you consider that we neutralized 2 nations at the cost of so few. You talk of how Iraq was not in bed with Al Queda, this is true. But they were indeed in contact with each other, and there was serious consideration of limited co-operation. But it is not just Al Queda, there was a number of other groups Saddam either supported or turned a blind eye to, not to mention his well publicized support of Palestinian suicide bombers families. But that is not even the issue, for the goal was to prevent Saddam from ever supporting or enabling any such terror groups either in the present sense or future.
Here is a little tidbit I bet you didn’t know. We didn’t know about this till after Iraq fell. Did you know that even back in 91,after the Gulf War, Saddam was such a risk taker that he tried to use WMD on the Kurds, but the bombs failed and in the end they used tear gas? This was a huge risk considering we still had forces on the ground in southern Iraq at the time. But that was the sort of desperation and risk taking Saddam was capable of.
I will attempt to communicate with you one more time.
1). I do not delete general criticisms such as “those stupid liberals” or “those stupid conservatives”. I delete posts directed at specific individuals. There will be no exceptions. Attack me personally or anyone else on the thread personally and you will be deleted. If it continues, you will lose your right to post on this site.
2). I also delete posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion on the thread. That is common practice on any decent web forum.
3). I think you are confused about left v. right wing. Most, but not all, of my criticisms are of those supportive of the radical right wing NeoCons such as Bush, Cheney, etc. Do you consider yourself a left-winger? Where do you find me being critical of left wingers on this thread? I certainly have been critical of the left (Democrats) in their lack of accountability of the Bush Administration as well as their acquiescence to far too much of the anti-Constitution, fascist Bush agenda.
4). In which post did I “insert a personal attack against” you?
I am happy to discuss the issues. Do you have anything to say about any of the issues? I appreciated the link to the UCLA study, I just disagree with some of the findings and assumptions it made.
Perhaps then the problem with that is that while you demand no one talk about you, you continue to talk quite personally about them, “digitally lobotomized”, “and have no ability to think for themselves”. Heck, you even edited one of my posts to insert a personal attack against me, WITHIN MY OWN POST! Don’t give me this “I’m against personal attacks” nonsense when your actions, and words, speak so clearly otherwise.
Instead of insulting those who happen to be left-wing and think differently than you, why not discuss issues? You seem fervently against any discussion of the issues, despite your claims otherwise.
I deleted your post because it was just a continuation of the redirection of the topic off of the issues and onto personal attacks.
Discuss the issues directly and you will be allowed to post on this site.
I don’t hate anyone because they think differently than me. I pity those who are digitally lobotomized into worshiping wannabe tyrant Bush and have no ability to think for themselves – only parroting NeoCon talking points, but that won’t cause a deletion. It is easy enough just to let the stupidity speak for itself.
What will not be tolerated is a deflection away from the topic at hand and onto a line of personal attacks.
In other words… adults only.
Why did you delete my post Mikael? I held out the olive branch and you poked yourself in the eye with it. Maybe someday you’ll learn to stop hating people simply because they think differently than you.
My point Mark is that the Bush Administration bails out the lenders and the banks but ignores the plight of the individual citizens. It is a constant.
This is a repeat of the S&L scandal or the bankruptcy of Northwest Airlines, etc.. The big money folks get their bail out and the little people get screwed.
Blaming the borrowers is fine as long as you are fair and blame the predatory lenders as well. All I ask is for a balance of responsibility and accountability.
It is time for that to change.
p.s. You can lay off the black helicopters crap. The only ones seeing black helicopters are the ones who believe Iraq smuggled WMDs off to Syria.
Somebody’s been seeing black helicopters in his back yard again. Or was that Kusinich’s UFO coming to pick him up?
While you’re signing up for your history courses, you may want to take an Econ 101 class too.
“Did you note how quickly the Bush Administration bailed out the banks and lenders but did little or nothing for the individuals who are losing their homes?”
Look up the term “bail out,” then look up “fire sale.” There’s a big difference. Bear Stearns got crushed under the weight of their practice of lending to risky applicants. The Fed only facilitated the sale to JPMorgan Chase to help stabilize the economy. I never saw anyone from the Bush Administration forcing people to borrow more money than they could afford to pay back, either. So why is it now the Administration’s responsibility to pay back their defaulted loans with my money? These folks should loose their homes; it’s a lesson they won’t soon forget. Unless you and I – “our tax dollars” as you said above – pay their loans off for them, then next week maybe they can get their credit cards paid off too.
And I suppose Halliburton was just supposed to donate their time and resources to the war effort, right? Do you have any idea the logistical problems there are with feeding and equipping an armed force the size of ours? No, I suppose you don’t. Do you think Frito Lay delivers to Afghanistan? How about PepsiCo? You say you want all the best things for our soldiers, but then bitch and bitch when the bill comes due. You can’t have it both ways.
Sorry Pup, but you are listening to the White House spin machine on the Iraq situation. One part truth, nine parts horseshit.
The original goals were not those that you listed. Those were added after the fact. All just part of the spin machine to keep the uninformed … well… uninformed.
What cannot be ignored is that the lies of the Bush Administration – lies to the world, to the American people and most importantly and impeachably, lies to Congress – have all been exposed now revealing that war crimes were committed. We attacked a country which posed no immediate threat against us and the Bush Administration knew full well that the ‘threats’ that they were screaming about were untrue.
That is the reason Cheney (and probably Bush) had Libby, Rove, Armitage and Fleischer ‘out’ Valerie Plame – in order to punish her husband Joseph Wilson for Wilson telling the truth about the Bush nuke lies. Outing of an active intelligence officer during wartime is high treason. That gives you an idea of how dark and criminally corrupt this administration is. (And yes, the four simultaneously were sent out to ‘out’ Plame – that much was confirmed during the Libby trial).
Our invasion and occupation has destabilized the region irretrievably. The Shi’ite have taken complete control of the southern part of Iraq, making that area completely at the mercy of Iran. Ethnic cleansing continues there as Sunni are murdered systematically.
The Baathists in power in Iraq NEVER were working with Al Qaeda. That was one more of the bevy of Bush lies.
All four of Bush’s own Intelligence agencies came to the conclusion that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has destabilized the Middle East, created a breeding ground for terrorists where none existed before, has inspired greater recruitment by Al Qaeda and other terrorists organizations and has made America LESS SAFE rather than more safe.
You call that success?
Saddaam was a horrible tyrant, that is true, but he was OUR tyrant for decades – keeping Iran at bay. We bought his weapons. WE PROVIDED HIM WITH THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS USED AGAINST THE KURDS, in fact. America has a long, sordid history of opposing populist leaders and supporting autocratic tyrants in nations we want to use and abuse. That cannot be denied.
The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and nothing to do with Saddaam. It was planned long in advance as revealed in the Project for a New American Century document: “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”. Members of PNAC included Cheney, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Perle, Wolfowicz – all the architects of the Iraq War who didn’t plan at all for the aftermath because they could care less about the Iraqi people or the stability of the region. They all just wanted to gain access to the oil for themselves and their oil cronies.
They have succeeded, although every time they put together another rickety Iraqi government, that government resists the Bush plan to take control of the oil. Of course, as soon as that happens, that Iraqi government falls apart and the Bushies attempt to install new puppets.
Over 70% of Iraqis want the U.S. out of Iraq immediately and over 50% of Iraqis believe that violence against the occupying U.S. military is justified.
If you call that success you are living in a dream world.
Thanks for at least addressing the questions, Pup.
Your answers speak for themselves revealing your lack of understanding of the issues, however.
Economy is in deep trouble and will need major work to be restored.
Did you note how quickly the Bush Administration bailed out the banks and lenders but did little or nothing for the individuals who are losing their homes? The economy has tanked for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that Bush inherited the largest surplus in the history of our nation and turned it into the biggest deficit in just the first 2 1/2 years of his first term. Crates of cash – our tax dollars – being shipped over to Iraq to hand to Blackwater and Halliburton didn’t help either. Remember the billions of dollars MISSING from the Pentagon as announced by Donald Rumsfeld on September 10th, 2001? Of course not – the events of the next day pushed that off the front pages around the nation. Another crime left unaccounted for.
The deep-seated corruption of this administration have gone unchecked because the Department of Justice has been completely compromised and until the mid-term elections brought some balance of power the GOP Congress was all to happy to look the other way and let the criminals in the White House rule the roost.
You obviously have no idea of how untrustworthy elections are in some states.
You assume I am a Democrat. Are you sure about that?
The Florida/Michigan Dem primary mess has nothing to do with verifiable elections.
It is now confirmed by history that the 2000 election was stolen in Florida and the Ohio theft of 2004 is just now being confirmed. Are you aware of the Ohio election officials who are serving jail time for helping to steal the 2004 election? Probably not.
The Supreme Court is getting lined with corporate ass-kissers – not constructionists. Just as in every other action Bush has taken over the last seven years, he is serving corporate interests and completely ignoring the best interests of the American people and the citizens of the world.
There is NOT plenty of petroleum and as the global supply runs low we need to pursue other energy resources instead of attacking countries that have what we want and stealing it from them. If you are talking about the oil reserves in Alaska, they would only cover 10% of our energy needs and it would take close to a decade to get to them. Bush condemns Iraq, Iran and Venezuela – not for their ideology or the actions of their leaders as is spouted from the podiums – but rather because they have the oil that Bush and Cheney’s oil baron cronies want unfettered access to.
I find it so sad that so many otherwise intelligent people are so completely brainwashed by the corporate domination of the media sources they trust for information.
“The Iraq disaster will be inherited by whichever candidate wins the election – or at least has the most control over the vote counting machines. I will continue to object to this war every step of the way – as will everyone who supports the best interests of America and supports the troops and their families.”
Iraq disaster? Why, we are at about 80% success now. Our aims were basically to 1. Depose Saddam (and as most people forget, to also prevent his sons from continuing the regime. . 2. End Iraq’s support of terrorist groups as well as their potentially providing terrorist groups with WMD. 3. Establish Iraq as a stable, democratic state in the Middle east that is not a threat to it’s neighbors. Other than the stability still being in question, this is also essentially done. The true measure of success will not be known for about 5 years, though it looks clear that in 5 years, Iraq and the “disaster” will be but a page in history.
“Does any one of you have anything positive to say? A suggestion for a new direction for this faltering economy? A stand for verifiable elections? A way to keep the Abramoff’s from buying American policy? A way to revive the U.S. Constitution from it’s near-death experience under CheneyBush? A plan to ween us off our our petroleum addiction?”
Oooo! I have something positive to say! Faltering economy will do just fine. Verifiable elections? This coming from a democrat? We certainly have seen their true colors in Florida and Michigan haven’t we? Constitutional crisis? Hopefully one more liberal justice will retire or die before Bush is gone and we can get a half way sane, constructionist judge in. Ween us from petroleum? Why? We need more petroleum, and it is there to be got if your ecowhacko friends would get out of the way.
The topic of “Mikael” is closed. Any comments that attack him personally will be deleted. Any topics that attack any other individual will be deleted as well. Grow up, children.
Oh and Mark Logan:
You said:
“Make sure to ask the Vets what they think of that. ”
Believe me I do. I was a guest speaker at the 2006 Veterans for Peace convention in Seattle and they applauded what I had to say. I work closely with Iraq Veterans Against the War and have helped to support and publicize the 2008 Winter Soldier operation that the corporate media ignored.
I have no problem asking any veteran what they think. I will speak to any of them any time. And I will tell them what I think and often do.
COINTELPRO Jak,
John McCain was born on August 29, 1936, at Coco Solo Naval Air Station in Panama according to Wikipedia… which means it should be checked for accuracy.
Octogenarian: Someone in his or her eighties, that is, between 80 and 89 years of age.
You are so right… well kind of…
I thought McCain was in his eighties so I used the correct term. I guess having ‘senior moments’ four days in a row on the exact same topic – exhibiting potential symptoms of Alzheimer’s Disease – made me think of him as even older than he actually is.
Of course you may be exhibiting your own symptoms for confusing the NeoCon trolls on this site I am chastising with “liberals”. You may want to get that checked out.
“octogenarian” — Mikael
Actually, he’s a septuagenarian. You shouldn’t try to use big words unless you know what they mean.
While you chastise the so-called liberal “trolls” for being negative, you mock them constantly with your rediculous caricature of liberalism. Its pathetic. You’re trying to contradict yourself, ok, I get it. Its supposed to be funny, ok, I get it, haha. At a certain point, the horse you are beating no longer resembles a horse. You are well past that point.
[Editor’s note: Someone who criticizes a post for alleged misuse of a word might want to be sure he is able to spell “ridiculous” correctly or he may make himself look ‘rediculous’.]
More mindless ranting.
Does any one of you have anything positive to say? A suggestion for a new direction for this faltering economy? A stand for verifiable elections? A way to keep the Abramoff’s from buying American policy? A way to revive the U.S. Constitution from it’s near-death experience under CheneyBush? A plan to ween us off our our petroleum addiction?
Nothing?
Nothing at all?
Oh wait.. there was one actual rational question asked… thank you Mark Logan for that brief flash of sanity when you asked:
“By the way, Mikael, will you be impeaching BHO if he gets elected? He has stated quite clearly that he will keep troops in Iraq, and/or send more in if violence ticks up.”
The Iraq disaster will be inherited by whichever candidate wins the election – or at least has the most control over the vote counting machines. I will continue to object to this war every step of the way – as will everyone who supports the best interests of America and supports the troops and their families. Any American president must be ready to order troops into harm’s way as necessary. The difference will be that Barack Hussein Obama is not beholden to the corporate entities to the degree that Bush, McCain or Hillary are. That may prove to be a crucial difference. He was not my first choice, but he is miles better than the other two candidates remaining.
The sad thing is that plenty of Americans think Obama is a muslim and plenty more are too racist to recognize him for the fine gentleman and statesman that he is. He is already under attack from the GOP, the corporate press, swift boaters, the slimy trolls visiting this site and from Billary…
Populist candidates with the people’s best interests truly in mind are hard to come by. It would be a horrible shame to see this one go down due to ignorance and corporate influence before even reaching office.
Of course by comparing Osama to Harding you lost all semblance of rationality, but that is your modus operandi. Who was it that just confused Sunni with Shi’ite FOUR DAYS IN A ROW??? Hint, it wasn’t the 46 year-old gentleman form Illinois or the former First Lady. If you guessed the ‘one-foot in the grave’ bumbling, flip flopping, 100-year-war octogenarian then YOU ARE OUR GRAND PRIZE WINNER TODAY! And which candidate are you insinuating is posturing in order to “look like a president”?
Anyone who wants to continue Bushie’s insane policies and throws their arm around the Pretendident is unqualified for the office.
~~~
Peachie, I am going to break the rules for just a second and tell you that by posting this: “your most rational and coherent posts happen to be other people’s, cut and pasted from leftwing sites” you are a lying sack of ____.
If you can prove that I cut and pasted a single quote unattributed and unlinked I will apologize. If you cannot prove that, then indeed, you are a lying sack of ____.
Am I getting personal? I am responding to a personal smear – a typical Rovian slander. I am defending myself against your lie. I am challenging you to prove your accusation or apologize if you have any integrity at all. Where did I cut & paste from any site without crediting the site? Where?
Your peach is rotting and starting to smell.
Only 19 percent of all Americans–yes, that’s ALL 1,100 of them–support Bush!
Mikael, you are like a gift that keeps on giving, even if your most rational and coherent posts happen to be other people’s, cut and pasted from leftwing sites. But that’s OK–your “original material” is a lot more entertaining and, I suspect, more representative of the real you.
I hope you never change, Mikael, and that you always be yourself.
xoxo
Mikael, I keep seeing you write “the worst seven years in American presidency” and “worst President in American history” about the Bush administration. You need a history lesson, apparently you were out smoking pot, or reading Karl Marx or something during history class. Ever hear of James Buchanan or Warren G. Harding? Much worse than even Jimmy Carter (you know who Carter is, right?).
From Wikipedia about Harding:
“In his book, Blink, Malcolm Gladwell became the latest of a long string of political pundits and ordinary voters who felt that Warren Harding’s electoral success was based on his appearance, essentially that he “looked like a president”. Gladwell argues that people’s first impression of Harding tended to be so highly favorable that it gave them a fixed and very high opinion of Harding, which could not be shaken unless his intellectual and other deficiencies became glaring. Gladwell even refers to the flawed process by which people make decisions as ‘Warren Harding Error.'”
Sound like anyone running now? Maybe we should rename that to ‘Barack H. Obama Error’. By the way, Mikael, will you be impeaching BHO if he gets elected? He has stated quite clearly that he will keep troops in Iraq, and/or send more in if violence ticks up.
Oh, and just to touch on the whole ‘economy’ issue, I’m going to come back to this thread in six months, and make a cynical remark on how you thought the economy was collapsing, and how foolish you look, because it stabilized and is stronger than ever. Look for it. September 22. I’ll be the one laughing on the way to the bank.
“My Dad was in the US Navy in the Pacific at the end of WWII so you can’t pull the “ask a veteran” crap. Lazy non-intellectualism is all you have to offer.”
Wow! That gives you a similar qualification for you as Hillary has to be president!
“According to an American Research Group poll last summer, over 50% of Americans favored impeachment of Cheney and a majority favored impeachment of Bush 46%-40% with the rest undecided. 70% of Democrats favored impeachment of Cheney at the same time.”
What the %&#) does that have to do with the price of Patchouli in Berkly? It is for reasons such as this that the Founding Fathers created a Republic, not a democracy.
Do liberals not realize that should a democrat be elected, what remains of your “life” will be ended for at least 4 years, for we know there will be no demonstrations, protests, or moral indignation about any democrat sponsored event, just as there was nothing when the US attacked Bosnia even though we had no UN sanction nor any compelling national interest.
Mikael sneered:
“Chubby Huggs: poster child for the 19%ers. One more post without saying a thing.”
Thanks Mikael!
Better a poster child for the 19%ers than somebody who’s never stood post, watch or swore an oath to the Constitution.
Did anybody even show up for your big STORMING of the State Capitol?
Those horrible videos don’t indicate any such thing. Just a bunch of nitwits holding signs and milling around. Lame and Shame. Another “symbolic action”. Symbolic in the moonbat struggle against sanity. Reminds me of the Judean People’s Front in “Life of Brian”.
Mikael would you mind if I refered to you from now on as “Loretta”?
“you [personal attack deleted] slither out from under your rocks and spend the entire day attacking me personally and do not address a single topic on our website.”
No, we address the issues, you just ignore us. And just to clarify about your fixation on “personal attacks,” Freedom of Speech is about ideas, not vocabulary. And since when is individual liberty “sniveling nonsense?”
Get a clue.
Chubby Huggs: poster child for the 19%ers. One more post without saying a thing.
What is hilarious is that all you trolls slither out from under your rocks and spend the entire day attacking me personally and do not address a single topic on our website.
Pathetic, really.
Almost as pathetic as supporting the worst President in American history and probably already decided to support his agenda with the next President. the worst seven years in American presidency and you want to see more of it.
Worse than pathetic.
Moronic.
Oh, and a personal attack doesn’t require that a name be specified, only some function of human character/persona. It is called “ad hominem” for a reason. For example, if I say, “You’re an idiot”, that would be a personal attack even though I did not specify a name.
Back to Post #20
Our hero stated:
“Knuckle-draggers… keep the whining up.. it is the perfect distraction from any discussion of real issues. You could work for Karl Rove!!!”
Mikael, at least Karl Rove pays. You slave for Karl Marx.
Mikael brags(?) at Post #15:
My Dad was in the US Navy in the Pacific at the end of WWII so you can’t pull the “ask a veteran” crap. Lazy non-intellectualism is all you have to offer.
Whisky Tango Foxtrot, Bravo Foxtrot Delta.
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!
My pappy flew as a RIO Spook off of a flattop in Rolling Thunder. Two Bronzes and a slew of fruit salad. Me, I was just a 31Mike sparky grunt.
“Lazy non-intellectualism is all you have to offer.”?
Ask not what your blah blah blah…stop the press! Mikael’s dad was a Squid. (and I don’t mean that with disrespect, I salute your dad)
What have you done Mikael? BOHICA
Criticized and complained.
Railed against the Marines who were proven not guilty.
Supported Jesse MacBeth and that idiot Watada, a Red Diaper Doper Baby if there ever was one.
Whine and then whine some more.
All in vain.
Whaaaaah. Baaaa Baaaa.
Go ahead, delete my post.
I’ve stood post, Jody.
More sniveling nonsense from the 19%ers…
Anyone want to debate/discuss the issues?
Christ, it must be a snow day in St. Paul.
OK, let me get this straight; Your father served in the Navy, so it’s OK for you to sit on your ass and bitch? Hmmm, never heard that one before. I still don’t think that equates to serving. Make sure to ask the Vets what they think of that. Oh, I forgot – you’re too busy to go and drop in on them. Too bad, I think they’d get a real kick out of you.
And what the hell is “Lazy non-intellectualism” supposed to mean? is that a slight on my character? Nah, must be my imagination. If you want to call me a name, feel free to use King’s English. I won’t blush.
And please, by all means; call everyone else Right-Wing partisan hacks while you provide link after link to sources like Kieth Olbermann and Stephen Colbert. That does wonders for your credibility.
The reason you can’t see the bias in the main stream media, Mikael, is because you have gone so far Left you go in circles. You seem to think Left of Center is somehow Right-Wing(?). When a newscaster says “a tingle runs down my leg” after listening to an Obama speech, you know the ship is listing (and that’s just one of hundreds of examples).
“The majority of Americans:”
Don’t want you speaking for them. I am one of them. If you want to keep calling anyone who disagrees with you a 19%er, that’s fine, but just remember that we are all individuals, and have free will. Not everyone wants to have a collectivist mentality and go along with the group just because the group is going. You are entitled to your opinion, but I find it obnoxious that you try to force everyone else to share that opinion. If you want the president impeached, fine. If you want to stomp around in the rain shouting at City Hall, fine. But don’t expect the entire world to stop rotating when no one cares what you say or do.
Have fun shoveling the slush.
-Mark
Peachie wrote:
“The MSM is more concerned with beating the drums for a worsening economy”
To which Mikael shrieked:
Maybe that would be BECAUSE WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF A WORSENING ECONOMY AND THAT IS THE #1 CONCERN OF THE ELECTORATE? HELLO??!?!?
Peachie replies: That was my point, Mikael. All you did was reword my post. People care more about that than they do about the war, or impeachment, or any of the protests or rallies related to war and impeachment. And because they don’t care, the MSM no longer covers those activities, and that’s why you didn’t get your picture in the paper last weekend. You’re obviously still in a snit about it. I might suggest you get over it, except you’re a lot more fun this way.
I’m sorry, I missed it. At what point did you switch from wanting to impeach Bush to Cheney? I’m not sure why your character is laughing after being caught in a mistake. I’ve never known any real liberal to be so disingenuous. I’m honestly offended by your characterization of liberals as being rigid and incapable of understanding even the most basic numerical concepts. It was funny before, but now its gone too far. I’ve got liberals and conservatives both in my family and friends and you are being wholly dishonest in your portrayal of them. You are probably just some super hateful conservative who will say and do anything while pretending to be a liberal to make them look dumb. You make me sick. No liberal, or any person for that matter, is anywhere near as foolish as you are pretending. You are deliberately trying to offend good natured people just because they happen to think differently than you and harbor a left-wing worldview. Your actions are hurtful to legitimate left-wing causes and good-natured people everywhere. I’m generally a fan of absurdist satire, but this goes too far.
“I’m not entirely sure what purpose your last post had…”
The discussion loses its momentum when you can’t keep up. May I suggest going back and re-reading the thread?
American voters favored impeachment of Bush: 46%-44% with 10% undecided in the poll
Poll: 54% of Country Wants Cheney Impeached
By David Swanson
A […] poll conducted by http://americanresearchgroup.com/impeach/ finds that 54% of American adults want the US House of Representatives to begin impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney, including 76% of Democrats, 17% of Republicans, and 51% of Independents. The same poll found 46% of voters in favor of the same thing for President George W. Bush, including 69% of Democrats, 13% of Republicans, and 50% of independents.
The question asked was very straight forward: “Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?” How does your right-tilting brain come to the conclusion that is a leading question? The same way you decided that Fox News had a left-leaning slant in 2005?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Still the funniest thing I have heard all day. Please amuse me more!!! It is the least you can do since you have ignored nearly every major point I’ve brought up along the way.
Make me laugh!!!
I’m not entirely sure what purpose your last post had, perhaps the humor was just too subtle to detect. Nevertheless, I checked out the poll you referenced and found your conclusions (attempts at humor?) to be quite false.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/impeach/
Top article is the most recent poll. You will note that those that chose number 4, “impeachment”, are in the minority, not the majority. Even then, it seems unusually high compared to other poll data I’ve seen from the same time period. Even to the most ardent Bush hater, impeachment will seem less desirable as the election nears. We can expect that the number has dropped to insignificance as the campaign matures. This would explain why no new polls exist; no intelligent person takes the issue seriously anymore. As a conservative, you (when out of character) might say that no intelligent person ever did.
As to the poll you’ve “quoted”. These are the numbers from last summer for the source you’ve attributed them to:
All Adults: 45%(yes) 46%(no) 9%(undecided)
Incidentally, these aren’t the numbers that you’ve “quoted”. Furthermore, it doesn’t appear you’ve considered the question asked by the poll which goes as follows:
“Question:
Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?”
Because of the question used, I’m surprised the numbers aren’t much higher. Do you remember when republicans forced a vote on an immediately withdrawal from Iraq? Do you remember what happened? Both the dems and reps voted overwhelmingly against the measure for immediate withdrawal. Do you think the reps really wanted to withdrawal? No, of course not. But they knew that by bringing up the vote, they would damage the dems by forcing them to show their hand. The dems were screaming for withdrawal, but when the time came to vote, they lined up for “stay the course”. There were dems last summer, and previously, calling for impeachment. Can you guess why the reps would want to vote on it? To embarrass the dems, of course.
Oops, just had a long conversation with your character even though I know its satire. Just shows how convincing your act can be. I’m very curious now about the “real” you. You are a conservative, right? Do you have an out of character blog somewhere?
The majority of Americans:
Call for the end of our occupation of Iraq & troops home
Don’t trust our national elections & want reforms
Want accountability for political criminals
Don’t trust the Bush Administration
Disapprove of the job Bush is doing
Disapprove even more of Cheney
Understand the the last seven years have taken us in the wrong direction
Don’t trust the 9/11 Commission results
Favor Universal Health Care
Know that Fox News is not an impartial source
If you find your views outside of these basic truths known by your fellow citizens you are not a centrist nor in tune with the majority of Americans. Stop pretending you are in the middle.
Jak,
Your characterization of those favoring impeachment is pathetically lacking.
According to an American Research Group poll last summer, over 50% of Americans favored impeachment of Cheney and a majority favored impeachment of Bush 46%-40% with the rest undecided. 70% of Democrats favored impeachment of Cheney at the same time.
So this is what you call “the fringe”?
Your math skills are as severely lacking as your dime store analysis.
The main reason why the situation in Iraq is still chaotic is because that is the goal and was from the beginning. The longer the chaos the stronger the excuse for keeping their country occupied and the greater chance of controlling their oil revenues. Ultimately the goal has been all along to gain access to Iran’s oil. This, of course, is insane, as Iran has ten times the military strength that Iraq had and may be backed by a universal Arab and Muslim front against the USA after a second preemptive strike against an Arab nation – a second war of aggression in the region – this time against Iran.
Small wonder why former CIA analyst Ray McGovern said that many in the White House in years past referred to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Armitage, Feith, Wolfowicz, etc. simply as “The Crazies”.
Don’t believe me? Then you need to read a real journalist more regularly:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh
Warning to knuckle-draggers: Big words!!!
As I stated, I believe that your character “Mikael” is a bit over-the-top. I realize that we in the middle and right tend to make a bit of fun of our liberal friends. But really, they aren’t THAT dumb as your character would seem to suggest. Every liberal I’ve ever known has cringed at being compared to the “Bushishitlerimpeachhimnow” liberals, who are really a very small insignificant fringe group. Its kind of like comparing the democrat party to the KKK just because they have a member or two who happens to be a former KKK member. Its an unfair generalization. Nevertheless, still quite funny if a bit over-the-top.
Still haven’t quite caught up to reality, eh Jak?
Should I repost the difference between general criticisms and personal name calling and attacks?
How silly of me. I finally get it! This is satire! Hahaha. It is actually quite funny once I realized that. I re-read some of your comedies and a new tone emerged, yet it had been there all along. I should’ve known that not even the most deranged, hypocritical, delusional, and tragically comic Bush-hatred could contradict itself so much. Given your penchant for taking radical liberal claims and making them sound even more absurd than they are, I should have known better. My only criticism is that you should represent liberals a little bit more honestly in your humor. For example, even the most deranged liberal would not call for an end to personal attacks then use a very blatant personal attack within the same sentence. (That’s what clued me in on the satire.) As a political moderate, I feel that’s an unfair characterization of liberals.
The “do-it-yourself” impeachment kit bit is hilarious though. Indeed, there are some people out there that actually believe in that sort of stuff. Just curious — I don’t want to ruin the fun — are any of the “other” posters involved in your joke, or are you going it alone? Regardless, well done. I’ll stay posted for more of your sophisticated humor.
The War on Impeachment is Lost!
Bring our protesters home!
“All it takes in the current political climate to be considered a liberal is to tell the truth”. ~ Bill Moyers
“The truth has a definite liberal bias”. ~ Stephen Colbert
Folks, any argument that claims that the media leans left is hilarious. This UCLA study has some interesting points, but many of their conclusions are errant. The radio leans heavily right. I drive around the country a lot and listen to this crap regularly. Television is owned by four companies – all of whom cater to their sponsors. There are some good points – naming Jim Lehrer as the least biased is spot on, for instance. This is why the Bush Administration’s fascists have been pushing to underfund or eliminate PBS for years – the truth will kill them.
The only reason that national journalists are considered leftist is that it is their job to expose the truth. Here is a perfect example of actual journalism in which Bush spokesperson Dana Perino is caught in a lie by a Raw Story reporter who she had been trying to ignore for week after week:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/MSNBC_highlights_Brewer_exchange_with_Perino_0321.html
Olbermann highlights RAW exchange with Perino
David Edwards and Chris Tackett
Published: Friday March 21, 2008
Discussing Sen. John McCain’s much-publicized Iran/al-Qaeda “gaffe,” MSNBC Countdown host Keith Olbermann referenced an exchange Thursday between RAW STORY reporter Eric Brewer and White House spokesperson Dana Perino.
Olbermann characterized the exchange as evidence of a “growing gap” between McCain and President George W. Bush, and “reality.”
The back-and-forth with Brewer and Perino, which Brewer describes here, came after Brewer asked for White House comment on President Bush’s earlier statement that “an emboldened al-Qaeda with access to Iraq’s oil resources could pursue its ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction to attack America and other free nations.”
Said Olbermann, “Mr. Bush’s implication of Iranian/al-Qaeda cause — right in step with McCain’s myth-making referenced earlier and … despite McCain’s claim that he misspoke … is also disproved not just because he’s repeated it four times as documented here yesterday, but because it turns out today that in an even earlier iteration, he directly refers to Iran’s differences with al-Qaeda and claimed they worked together anyway.”
Olbermann continued, “The Washington Post today pointing out that a McCain fact sheet quoting [Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno] apparently supporting the Iran/al-Qaeda lie conveniently omits this key phrase: ‘We don’t see any evidence – significant evidence – that shows that the [Iranian] groups are funding and providing arms to Shi’a extremists are directly related to al-Qaeda.'”
MSNBC political analyst Rachel Maddow also appeared in the segment and said, “Bad enough that a presidential nominee might not know the difference between Sunni al-Qaeda and Shi’a Iran, but how much worse is it to think that he might be inspired by his own mistake to now try and make it seem true, or, even worse, that that he might actively be trying to conflate Iran and al-Qaeda in cahoots with the White House, much the way they tried to conflate Iraq and al-Qaeda, so that we’d all be hoodwinked into believing that attacking Iraq would be revenge for 9/11.”
Responded Olbermann, “So, is it official that McCain’s claim that he simply misspoke when he did this … was a lie to cover the earlier set of lies? And if that is the case, what is Lieberman doing trying to correct him?”
Maddow answered, “Well, [the McCain campaign] has to figure out if they are going to play the doddering old man line or the ‘I was right all along line.'”
When Olbermann asked where the media was in calling McCain out on these misstatements, Maddow said, “I’m waiting on the media to call him out on anything. There are three AirBus lobbyists working on his campaign and he is intervening to help out AirBus. He’s named as his spiritual guide a man that says the United States should aim to destroy the religion of Islam. They don’t seem to be alarmed by the fact that John McCain is either doddering or incoherent on this issue of Al Qaeda and Iran. I’m waiting for them to give him the kind of press coverage he deserves.”
“Fox did lean slightly to the left in ’05..”
OMG!!!
You are so completely out of touch with reality!!! That statement alone makes anything else you claim meritless. I won’t even bother to listen to anything you say if that is the delusion you live under.
Hilarious!!!
Fox has NEVER, EVER leaned anywhere even close to the center, much left to the left. It was formed by uber-conservative Roger Ailes – former campaign manager for multiple GOP and NeoCon political campaigns and funded by mega-corporatist Rupert Murdoch.
For those interested in reality on this topic I highly recommend: “Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism”
http://www.outfoxed.org
Are you completely out of your mind?
Fox leaned to the left of ’05??!?!?!
Thank you for my biggest laugh of the day.
I’ll say this a gently and non-attacking as possible… You are in a stupor. Go back to sleep now.
“Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.”
BULLSHIT.
The obvious reality is that all the major media outlets tilt toward the interests of their corporate sponsors.
Knuckle-draggers… keep the whining up.. it is the perfect distraction from any discussion of real issues. You could work for Karl Rove!!!
Note: General attack.. not personal attack. Nobody’s name was mentioned. Would you like me to explain the difference further? Type more slowly? Use smaller words?
“because violence in Iraq has declined”
Oh really? Did you notice the 52 that died in a bombing while Cheney was proclaiming that? Did you read how the Pentagon has been delaying and censoring the data of what has REALLY been happening in Iraq – certainly as ordered by the Idiot-in-Thief?
“The MSM is more concerned with beating the drums for a worsening economy”
Maybe that would be BECAUSE WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF A WORSENING ECONOMY AND THAT IS THE #1 CONCERN OF THE ELECTORATE? HELLO??!?!?
“Would you consider it a personal attack if I called you a hypocrite…?”
No, I would just call you ignorant for not seeing the difference.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
Try again. Apparently you haven’t read it because that’s NOT the conclusion. The conclusion of the study was given in the first paragraph of the article:
“Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.”
An intelligent person does not start with a conclusion then assume the facts supports that conclusion. No, an intelligent person investigates the facts, then gradually develops a conclusion based on those facts. Even then, the process of continual reform and reformation never ends. For example, this study was released in ’05. Alot has happened since then. You could’ve argued that, yes, Fox did lean slightly to the left in ’05 when this study occurred but has since moved somewhat to the right. Based on other studies and my own personal observation, I would agree with this assertion. But, you didn’t allow yourself the option to make that argument because you refused to peruse the data. You could’ve also pointed out that NPR isn’t quite so left wing as is generally perceived by conservatives, according to the data. You could’ve contested or modified the ADA rating and/or other methodologies as intelligent people might. There is so much you can do — once you’ve decided to look at the facts. And the fact is, that study is the best yet done on the subject.
If you consistently ignore information (see: reality) that seems inconvenient to your intentions, how can you possibly expect to impeach Bush? As with any endeavor, there will be obstacles that require a frank appreciation of the seemingly unfortunate in order to triumph. If you are unwilling to do this, you are bound to fail.
P.S. I agree that personal attacks are silly and unnecessary. However, you do not seem to hold yourself to this same principle. As you stated, “That doesn’t mean I or we are overly sensitive, we have established a basic standard of civility in an attempt to drag the knuckle-dragging Bush worshipers up to some semblance of honest discourse.” —Mikael
You ask for civility in discussion, then call those you disagree with “knuckle-draggers” in the same sentence? Are you serious?
Wrote Mikael:
“The MSM doesn’t want to report anything favorable about Bush.”
So in your doublespeak world, the reason the war protests weren’t covered is because the “liberal media” (corporate media) won’t report anything favorable about Bush?
Were you standing on your head when you came to that contradictory conclusion or were you smoking crack?
***
Mikael: Anti-war protests are no longer newsworthy, because violence in Iraq has declined. The MSM is more concerned with beating the drums for a worsening economy, because right now that’s more effective at making Bush look bad. You, more than anyone else, should appreciate that.
And no, I wasn’t standing on my head, nor was I smoking crack. If I made a comment like that to you, you’d call it a personal attack before deleting my post.
Would you consider it a personal attack if I called you a hypocrite for that?
Here is a reality check from British television for all you FAUXNews addicts:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19581.htm
Dispatches: Iraq – The Betrayal:
Must Watch Video Report From UK: Channel 4
Peter Oborne accompanies the UK Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, as he travels across Iraq, meeting the main players who will determine the future of the country; from the US Commanding General David Petraeus, to militiamen fighting to protect their homes, to parliamentarians holed up in Baghdad’s Green Zone, Oborne discovers that Iraq seems to have reverted to a violent feudalism.
Meanwhile America has lost the trust and respect of the world and there are chilling consequences of the war for ordinary people back on the streets of Britain.
Broadcast Mon 17 Mar
“Oh, and that “failed ideology” has kept a plane from landing on your house, or a suicide bomber from taking out your mother, or sister in the marketplace, by the way.”
No… that failed ideology allowed 9/11 to occur as Bush was too busy with other concerns. And don’t give me that “blame Clinton” crap either. The Clinton administration tried desperately to warn Bush about bin Laden but the Bushies ‘knew better’.
That failed ideology has made us less safe rather than more safe according to ALL FOUR OF OUR NATION’S MAJOR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES. Or did you miss that notice in the news as well as everything else the 81% of us who have figured out how horrible the Bush you worship has been?
My Dad was in the US Navy in the Pacific at the end of WWII so you can’t pull the “ask a veteran” crap. Lazy non-intellectualism is all you have to offer.
What needs to be cleaned up is an economic disaster after the failure of decades of Reaganism is coming to it’s conclusion now and the global disaster that has been the Bush years is coming to its conclusion.
“me and my buddies quietly go about the business of…”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
Enjoy your fantasy, 19%er!
P.S. Our editor deleted a personal attack. That doesn’t mean I or we are overly sensitive, we have established a basic standard of civility in an attempt to drag the knuckle-dragging Bush worshipers up to some semblance of honest discourse. Probably a lost cause, but if nothing else we hope to educate the less informed.
Quoth Mikael: “If we are so irrelevant, then why are you spending so much time attempting to debunk us?”
Not debunking; poking fun. And boy, are you sensitive. You’d think someone so stalwart in his convictions would be able to handle a challenge to his beliefs with a pish and a tosh, but no, you delete the statement and insult the person commenting. My father would have made me string a half mile of barbed-wire fence if I acted so soft when I was a kid.
You need to learn how harsh the world really is, my friend. Try having to defend your or your neighbor’s property with brute force. You’ll learn quickly that your insulated little Liberal Arts existence is an illusion, chimerical nonsense facilitated by the blood and guts of the Heroes defending your right to protest openly in the streets. Oh, and that “failed ideology” has kept a plane from landing on your house, or a suicide bomber from taking out your mother, or sister in the marketplace, by the way.
You’re welcome.
When you grow a pair, go visit the local Vets home and ask the Heroes there what Liberty means to them. Try to find one of the guys who was at Guadalcanal. Ask him if he thinks your free speech was worth the lives of 7,000 of his comrades. Then ask yourself; “Would I throw myself on a grenade to save Mark Logan’s life?”
I didn’t think so.
That my friend is what separates your ideology and my “failed ideology.” And that is why we mock you. You and your buddies cry about the injustice in the world, and stamp your feet when things don’t go as smoothly or as quickly as you’d like, while me and my buddies quietly go about the business of cleaning up the mess left behind after obstinate Leftists leave us vulnerable and blind.
Ignorance is bliss…
-Mark
Jak Attak,
I did read the article. I have read it before.
The conclusion is that Charlie Gibson of FOX (FauxNews) is unbiased?
yeah… a reputable study for sure.
You impeachment surfs seem goal challenged.
Why not start banging a drum for the purposes of impeaching algore for imposing his views on Global Warming?
Global Warming is clearly a liberal crock design for liberal money and power. Like most things liberal … destined to fail.
He should do jail time for frightening me and my family.
Protect us with your protests!
What was that film shot with? A windup 1950 Kodak 88mm?
You should of used black & white with a sepia tone.
Outdated technology for an outdated political ideology.
Don’t you impeachment weenies know the 1960’s are over? It happened 38 years ago.
It so sad.
I bet the patchouli stench was overwhelming.
How come the first video was yanked by YouTube?
Why leave it up there if it doesn’t work?
Were the hippies dropping a lot of “F-bombs”…like “F#@k Bush!” and “F@#K the USA!”
That’s creative.
“So in your doublespeak world, the reason the war protests weren’t covered is because the “liberal media” (corporate media) won’t report anything favorable about Bush?” —Mikael
You answered your own question. Being that they are corporate media after all, doncha think they might be interested in a profit? Let’s face it, mainstream America couldn’t care less about impeaching Bush. I believe that’s the mainstream feeling amongst the left too, not just the right and the middle. In addition, one newspaper isn’t the whole media, nor is one unprinted story an entire newspaper. One shouldn’t indict an entire national industry on such a small instance. If you’d like to learn more about media bias, read the link I sent you.
“The MSM doesn’t want to report anything favorable about Bush.”
So in your doublespeak world, the reason the war protests weren’t covered is because the “liberal media” (corporate media) won’t report anything favorable about Bush?
Were you standing on your head when you came to that contradictory conclusion or were you smoking crack?
Congratulations margaret,
You have graduated from personal attack to meaningless general attack.
By exposing the crimes of the Bush Administration, the impeachment movement has contributed to the resignation of Rumsfeld, Rove, Gonzales and others, the wash-out election of November, 2006 and the growing discontent with the Bush policies. Irrelevant? Hardly. You are simply attacking the impeachment movement because you are not capable of anything but blind loyalty to a failed presidency and a failed ideology.
But congratulations on coming to understand the difference between an unfounded personal attack to an unfounded general attack.
If we are so irrelevant, then why are you spending so much time attempting to debunk us?
Also…
By including my name in your entry you identified me as the subject of your attack, making it personal. You were not addressing IFP in general, you were addressing me. If rewriting history is what you are attempting to do, you are going to just look foolish. If you are apologizing to me then I accept. No harm, no foul. I am relatively impervious to personal attacks by 19%ers. Why would I take anything Bush supporters say seriously? Anyone incapable of recognizing the abysmal record of this presidency isn’t anyone worth taking seriously.
Violence is down in Iraq. Not as many troops are getting killed at the same daily rate as they were a year ago–though this hasn’t stopped the MSM from salivating over the fact that the death toll is about to hit the 4,000 mark. Aside from that, things have improved over there–and when things improve, it reflects favorably on Bush. That’s why it’s become irrelevant, and that’s why they’ve shifted their focus to the economy. The MSM doesn’t want to report anything favorable about Bush. That’s for your protection, as well as your benefit.
Now that’s responsible journalism! Look for the silver lining, Mikael!
In post 1. you deleted a statement of mine and made it appear as if it was a personal attack on you. By making it appear as if that simple statement was a personal attack on you, you have smeared me and made it appear as if I stoop to personal attacks. I do not. The first statement which you chose to label a personal attack was “You are irrelevant.” I’ll rephrase it:
Your movement is irrelevant.
It is, you know.
How long have you beaten this horse?
I’d rather be not honking at war protesters than fighting evil for my very existence.
Thank God for Geo Bush.
GREAT VIDEOS> BUUUUHS WILL BE IMPEECHED NOW 4 SHURE!!!!!!11111
You should read the study UCLA did on media bias. Its actually quite interesting.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
Breathtaking!
Testimony!
Impressed!
Meaning!
Truth!
Real!
WTF!
No!
!
Maybe they think the war protest and the impeachment movement are irrelevant to national discourse, Mikael. It doesn’t have anything to do with media bias one way or the other. [Personal attack deleted].
[Editor’s note: Personal attacks are no longer allowed on IFP. Anyone who sinks to personal attacks of other individuals on this blog risks being permanently banned at the sole discretion of the IFP staff.]