NationStates Jolt Archive

Mistake or intentional error? We lie you decide! Fox News should just come out an announce it for God's sake. At least when AL Franken spouts off on his program you know it has a liberal bias. These jackasses work with their stupid slogans the same way the Bush camp does. "Fairly Bullshit" should be their new one. Three seperate times they label Foley as a Democrat and we all know this to be not true. So tell me, was this a simple mistake, or another example of their deceit upon the American ADHD public?

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3570
:upyours:

OMGooses!!! Fox News is teh evil!!!1one

:rolleyes:

I don't like Fox News, but really now... it was a flub up. It got scrubbed off and the world moves on.

not good media
but similar to bush's X OVER FACE ON CNN
or open mikes on bush/others

shit does happen - you try to contact oriley/fox/and complain?

:confused:

I don't like Fox News, but really now... it was a flub up. It got scrubbed off and the world moves on.

It doesn't matter if it was a flub up. They did it three times with three different clips. People are going to overreact. And while it (probably) was a mistake, Fox News deserves no mercy because they would not have shown any to any other 'liberal' news source if the mistake was reversed. :)

It doesn't matter if it was a flub up. They did it three times with three different clips. People are going to overreact. And while it (probably) was a mistake, Fox News deserves no mercy because they would not have shown any to any other 'liberal' news source if the mistake was reversed. :)
Eh... I feel that they deserved to be mocked for making the mistake (Though the keys are close on a keyboard), but I'd like to think I'm better than Fox News and the conservatives who screamed bias when CNN accidently X's the VP.

They must've hired Deep Kimchi as lead story editor.

not good media
but similar to bush's X OVER FACE ON CNN
or open mikes on bush/others

shit does happen - you try to contact oriley/fox/and complain?
Yeah, a non-noticeable blip of an X on Cheney's face is totally the same as trying to slander the Democrats by calling Foley a Democrat because they can't make up a bullshit excuse to defend him. Oh wait, they have it's called "alcoholism" and "Bill CLinton slept with an intern!!111!1eleven"

They must've hired Deep Kimchi as lead story editor.

Yes, let's turn what was an ignorant thread to begin with into a flamefest. Well done. :rolleyes:

Eh... I feel that they deserved to be mocked for making the mistake (Though the keys are close on a keyboard), but I'd like to think I'm better than Fox News and the conservatives who screamed bias when CNN accidently X's the VP.

Well of course you're better. You're not a political pundit. :p

Well of course you're better. You're not a political pundit. :p
*LOL* LG, cockroches are better than poltical pundits... and probably more human too.

Yes, let's turn what was an ignorant thread to begin with into a flamefest. Well done. :rolleyes:

I am saying this strikes me as the average reality twist pulled by Kimchi. This isn't ignorant. Mistake in three different places? I think not. The more ignorant dicks will probably think he is really a Democrat and the GOP poll numbers will go up.

*LOL* LG, cockroches are better than poltical pundits... and probably more human too.

There's no comparison: Cockroaches avoid the lights. Pundits flock to them. :)

I am saying this strikes me as the average reality twist pulled by Kimchi. This isn't ignorant. Mistake in three different places? I think not. The more ignorant dicks will probably think he is really a Democrat and the GOP poll numbers will go up.

Yeah. Fox obviously did this on purpose. If it happened once on CNN then I would probably agree it was a mistake, but 3 times on Fox? Obviously an attempt to smear Democrats by outright lying. Not that it is much of a surprise.

Yes, let's turn what was an ignorant thread to begin with into a flamefest. Well done. :rolleyes:


Seriously, when dealing with matters of pedophilia wouldn't it be great just to associate the perpetrator with the opposing party rather than your own? A simple mistake should have been caught and corrected with an annotation to the fact. Newspapers print retractions to stories when they make errors. Wouldn't it have been prudent of them to make a statement such as, "earlier we made a mistake and identified Mr. Foley a a Democrat from Florida instead of a Republican. We regret this error and ask your understanding." Something as simple as this would have been proper, but what should I expect from this organization? It's OK to make mistakes, but covering them up is the problem. Hell, you think learning from Libby, Nixon and Hastert might be a good thing. It's the cover-up that kills.

It doesn't matter if it was a flub up. They did it three times with three different clips. People are going to overreact. And while it (probably) was a mistake, Fox News deserves no mercy because they would not have shown any to any other 'liberal' news source if the mistake was reversed. :)Once is a mistake. Three times is a pattern.

Once is a mistake. Three times is a pattern.

That depends on how their graphics are processed. If they used the same tag three times, they might not have caught that the tag was messed up for a while. On the other hand, if that isn't the case and they have to create the tag each time, then yes. It was definitely a pattern.

That depends on how their graphics are processed. If they used the same tag three times, they might not have caught that the tag was messed up for a while. On the other hand, if that isn't the case and they have to create the tag each time, then yes. It was definitely a pattern.

I would imagine that Fox News knew--on some level--within minutes of the first error. They had to have--there are too many people following this story rabidly for there not to have been multiple phone calls and emails the second it popped up on the screen. Hell, there were screen shots of it online within 30 minutes of the first occurence. I just don't buy the innocent mistake part of it. Once, okay, but not three times, not with the level of coverage this is getting.

Is that all? There's better things to hate Fox for.

Is that all? There's better things to hate Fox for.

The point is that they may have deliberatly attempted to smear the aprty counter their balance for politcal gain hoping no one would notice. It's like the swift boat ads... You could ingore them or point out their lies. I chose the latter.

Mistake or intentional error? We lie you decide! Fox News should just come out an announce it for God's sake. At least when AL Franken spouts off on his program you know it has a liberal bias. These jackasses work with their stupid slogans the same way the Bush camp does. "Fairly Bullshit" should be their new one. Three seperate times they label Foley as a Democrat and we all know this to be not true. So tell me, was this a simple mistake, or another example of their deceit upon the American ADHD public?

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3570
:upyours:


If you dont like Fox news watch one of the other moronic outlets that are just as bad or worse...in fact tune into nacy grace while she practicess her suicide counseling on live TV . ( CNN )

Or MsNBC...did that really happen ..we'll get back to you when we have facts ...is this mike on ?

Or CBS..Hey Dan these papers look fake ...


Or NBC or ABCD...take a pick...

I like the one were the reporter ws in a boat durring the hurricane and peeople walked by her while she was describing how high the water was ..


And dont forget all the rapes and murders and utter mayhem that went on inside the superdome during Katrina and The goofy Anderson Cooper not bothering to go actually look but reporting it...and the lemmings following him..

BUT IT WAS ALL BULLSHIT AND NEVER HAPPENED...



So what did Fox do again ??? Confuse Foley with a Democratt ?

They must have been thinking about Blow jobs while in office..a common mistake .

If you dont like Fox news watch one of the other moronic outlets that are just as bad or worse...in fact tune into nacy grace while she practicess her suicide counseling on live TV . ( CNN )

Or MsNBC...did that really happen ..we'll get back to you when we have facts ...is this mike on ?

Or CBS..Hey Dan these papers look fake ...


Or NBC or ABCD...take a pick...

I like the one were the reporter ws in a boat durring the hurricane and peeople walked by her while she was describing how high the water was ..


And dont forget all the rapes and murders and utter mayhem that went on inside the superdome during Katrina and The goofy Anderson Cooper not bothering to go actually look but reporting it...and the lemmings following him..

BUT IT WAS ALL BULLSHIT AND NEVER HAPPENED...



So what did Fox do again ??? Confuse Foley with a Democratt ?

They must have been thinking about Blow jobs while in office..a common mistake .It's funny to watch a head explode in real time.

It's funny to watch a head explode in real time.

Agreed … then ya here him muttering “But bill … blowjob … bill Clinton, bill but bill bill” as he wanders off talking to himself

Yeah, didn't Dan Rather get fired for a simple mistake made by CBS? I wonder who's gonna take the fall for this 'mistake'... oh wait, nobody. Of course. Apologize, walk away. Nothing happens. Least they could do is denounce it on the next show, making damn sure that everyone knows the pedodelegate is republican just to fix the error at the least.

Yeah, didn't Dan Rather get fired for a simple mistake made by CBS? I wonder who's gonna take the fall for this 'mistake'... oh wait, nobody. Of course. Apologize, walk away. Nothing happens. Least they could do is denounce it on the next show, making damn sure that everyone knows the pedodelegate is republican just to fix the error at the least.

They fired him, made him apologize publicly, apologized again, read a written apology they wrote to the prez. What happens when O'leilly the phone sex operator makes mistakes? NADA. Just admit when you are wrong and people will respect you more. They won't like you, but respect will be yours.

Once is a mistake. Three times is a pattern.

What's the line Goldfinger used to Bond? "Once is coincidence, twice is happenstance, three times is enemy action."

Mistake or intentional error? We lie you decide! Fox News should just come out an announce it for God's sake. At least when AL Franken spouts off on his program you know it has a liberal bias. These jackasses work with their stupid slogans the same way the Bush camp does. "Fairly Bullshit" should be their new one. Three seperate times they label Foley as a Democrat and we all know this to be not true. So tell me, was this a simple mistake, or another example of their deceit upon the American ADHD public?

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3570
:upyours:


oh God. There is one...ONE...News Network that reports with a Conservative Angle and the liberals go insane just like mini-stalinists.

To be honest, I find CNN and the other news networks more watchable now that I have two interpetations of the days events. Mix in a little C-Span and I can come to informed conclusions.

the network that outright lies would be the BBC and to a lesser extent the CBC. Talk about agenda driven...yeesh. Even a British Judge had to smack around the BBC for some of their reporting.

They fired him, made him apologize publicly, apologized again, read a written apology they wrote to the prez. What happens when O'leilly the phone sex operator makes mistakes? NADA. Just admit when you are wrong and people will respect you more. They won't like you, but respect will be yours.


CBS stonewalled the issue until the proof mounted up to the point where their credibility was about to be forever tarnished. Rather had to apologize publicly and CBS had to fire him because the arrogance of CBS news was pissing off alot of people both in and outside of the profession.

As for Bill O'reilly, he gets attacked practically every day for every little thing he says that might not be entirely accurate. Also, he often addresses the discrepencies on his own show.

Lets cool the partisanship here people. Everyone thinks the world is out to get them these days. one is for sure though, if you are left of center...you have PLENTY of places to go for your news if all you want is that particular point of view.

As for Bill O'reilly, he gets attacked practically every day for every little thing he says that might not be entirely accurate. Also, he often addresses the discrepencies on his own show.

What's that tell you? Possibly, that he doesn't check his facts and will spit anything that could further his own political agenda, regardless of whether or not it's true? Possibly? Maybe? Definitely?

oh God. There is one...ONE...News Network that reports with a Conservative Angle and the liberals go insane just like mini-stalinists.

To be honest, I find CNN and the other news networks more watchable now that I have two interpetations of the days events. Mix in a little C-Span and I can come to informed conclusions.

the network that outright lies would be the BBC and to a lesser extent the CBC. Talk about agenda driven...yeesh. Even a British Judge had to smack around the BBC for some of their reporting.


Air America radio has a liberal bias and they admit it. Fox New tries to declare itself fair and balanced and it's an outright lie. Bill O'Reilly thinks if he yells louder then he is right. The point is not whether the news has a bias it's whether that bias is intentional and an attempt to harm the other party through lying. The BBC is controlled by the British government so if you are saying they lie then that would mean the government...and yeesh, even Fox had to SUE TO LIE in federal court. They actually filed a suiot to allow them to not tell the truth when they knew they were lying.

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued that the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news

Fox News Continues Persecution of Reporters Who Exposed Network Lies on Monsanto's rBGH

8/23/2004
(TAMPA)--A Florida judge has denied a Fox Television motion that would have forced its former investigative reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson to pay nearly $2 million in legal fees and court costs the broadcaster spent to defend itself at trial in the landmark whistleblower suit brought by the journalists.

In her ruling which followed a lengthy hearing in Tampa Wednesday (August 18), Judge Vivian Maye cited previous court decisions that allow judicial discretion in deciding whether whistleblowers must reimburse defense costs if they ultimately lose.

Still at issue are some additional court costs that Fox says it is entitled to collect from the journalists under different rules that apply at the appellate level. Fox took the case there and ultimately overturned the jury on a legal technicality last year. (There, the party that ultimately wins is generally allowed to collect appellate costs and fees from the losing party.)

Ironically, the ruling came four years to the very day and exact hour that a jury returned its landmark ruling in the case and a $425,000 award to reporter Jane Akre.

This latest decision stems from a case filed in 1998 by former Fox journalists Akre and Wilson who charged they were pressured to broadcast what they knew and documented to be lies about an artificial hormone injected into dairy cows, then fired when they refused and threatened to report the matter to the Federal Communications Commission.

After a five-week trial in 2000, a jury decided unanimously that Akre was fired solely because she threatened to blow the whistle to the FCC the broadcast of a false, distorted or slanted news report. The panel that found in Akre's favor awarded nothing to Wilson who represented himself at trial.

The Fox appeal was largely on an argument that it is not technically illegal for a broadcaster to deliberately distort the news on television. The appellate justices reasoned that since state law provides whistleblower protection only for employees who object to misconduct which is against an "adopted law, rule, or regulation" and they decided prohibitions against news distortion are merely a "policy" of the FCC, the reporters' eight-year-old lawsuit must have been without merit from its
inception.

"The appellate judges were wrong to overturn the jury on the notion that it's not illegal for a broadcaster to lie in a television news report," Akre said.

"And what's even more shameful is that a broadcaster would argue that the First Amendment is broad enough to protect outright lies and deliberate distortion," Wilson added. "Remember this case the next time you hear `fair and balanced,' or `we report, you decide'."

In her ruling yesterday, Judge Maye noted, "Three different trial court judges believed this case had legal merit." Six times before Fox appealed its loss, those judges rejected that very same argument, deciding prohibitions against deliberate distortion of the news on the public airwaves was more than a mere violation of government policy.

Reading from the Jury Verdict Form, she also noted that six disinterested jurors decided Fox fired Akre for no other reason than her objection to airing a report the jurors agreed was "false, distorted, or slanted."

Ironically, the decision came exactly four years to the day-and virtually to the very hour-that a jury returned a favorable verdict and $425,000 award for one of the reporters.

The journalists, who have already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on their own costs and fees as plaintiffs, are not entirely off the hook for paying at least some of Fox's expenses. The broadcaster told the court it was seeking to recover only part of its total defense costs which is believed to be well over $3 million.

The appeals court which affirmed Wilson's loss at trial has ordered him to reimburse what Fox spent on court costs and attorneys' fees at the appellate level. Fox says that amount is about $130,000 but the exact amount of any eventual judgment must be determined by the trial court judge following review by a court- ordered mediator.

In Akre's case, the appeal court justices ruled last February that she was not liable for what Fox paid its attorneys to handle the appeal because she was defending a trial court victory. That decision still left her subject to pay Fox's appellate court costs and, accordingly, Judge Maye entered an order that Fox is entitled to collect from her its $156 filing fee and $18,256 in premiums for the bond the broadcaster posted to insure payment of the jury verdict if it had been upheld.

Still at issue is an additional $43,747 Fox wants to collect for the cost of a second copy of the trial transcript the broadcaster needed for its appeal. Fox paid at least that much for an original copy on a day-to-day basis as the trial continued but now argue it was forced to buy the second copy because its attorneys were told the "dailies" could not be used in the appeal.

Thomas Johnson, representing Akre and Wilson, contested the charge. He told Judge Maye that the court's chief clerk has said there has never been a requirement that daily transcripts were insufficient for purposes of pursing an appeal, suggesting Fox's purchase of the second set was an unnecessary burden that should not be placed on the reporters.

The judge gave each side 10 days to file a formal response on that issue before she makes a ruling.

Fox could appeal Judge Maye's decision back to the Second District Court of Appeal but would need to provide a compelling argument that Judge Maye somehow abused her discretion in deciding not to award trial court fees and costs to the defendant.

What's that tell you? Possibly, that he doesn't check his facts and will spit anything that could further his own political agenda, regardless of whether or not it's true? Possibly? Maybe? Definitely?

what it tells me is that there are plenty of people out there who hate him simply because of his often right of center viewpoints and the fact that he has the highest rated primetime cable news show out there.

does he have an agenda? ofcourse. But his opinion makes up his show. he is no different than a columnist or editorialist, except he debates his position. his job is not to report hard news.

so possibly, maybe, definitely he has critics because they do not agree with his opinions.

what it tells me is that there are plenty of people out there who hate him simply because of his often right of center viewpoints and the fact that he has the highest rated primetime cable news show out there.

does he have an agenda? ofcourse. But his opinion makes up his show. he is no different than a columnist or editorialist, except he debates his position. his job is not to report hard news.

so possibly, maybe, definitely he has critics because they do not agree with his opinions.

Opinions should be based on facts and not falsehoods?

Lets cool the partisanship here people. Everyone thinks the world is out to get them these days. one is for sure though, if you are left of center...you have PLENTY of places to go for your news if all you want is that particular point of view.

Okay, let's assume that the whole idea that reality is, on some degree, subjective is true (I myself do believe it to be).

However, it's NOT SUBJECTIVE ENOUGH TO TURN A REPUBLICAN INTO A DEMOCRAT!

It's one thing to say "vandals" instead of "protesters" or to say "fundamentalists" instead of "Christians", that's bias.

It's another thing entirely to say "Democrat" instead of "Republican", that's 2+2=5.

Air America radio has a liberal bias and they admit it. Fox New tries to declare itself fair and balanced and it's an outright lie. Bill O'Reilly thinks if he yells louder then he is right. The point is not whether the news has a bias it's whether that bias is intentional and an attempt to harm the other party through lying. The BBC is controlled by the British government so if you are saying they lie then that would mean the government...and yeesh, even Fox had to SUE TO LIE in federal court. They actually filed a suiot to allow them to not tell the truth when they knew they were lying.


Liuzzo, I actually watch Fox News as I do the other networks. I notice faults, mistakes and even lies on all of the networks. CNN has a liberal bias, Fox has a conervative bias. That is how it is, but normally it is hard to tell the two networks apart. My guess is you are not a conservative or even a moderate, because I have yet to run across one Fox News critic who is not a liberal in some fashion.

Also, the New York Times has made more blunders than Fox News, why do you not wage a Crusade on them as well?

and Air America...please...that debacle was marketed as a left wing alternative to conservative talk radio...it is and always was supposed to be an opinion based broadcast.

That's pretty funny. If they did that on purpose that's incredibly clever.

That's pretty funny. If they did that on purpose that's incredibly clever.

Agreed (And a liberal here).

Opinions should be based on facts and not falsehoods?


apparently, because you disagree with his conclusions, he must not be basing them on facts but falsehoods.

Once is a mistake. Three times is a pattern.


"Once is accident, twice is coincidence.Three times is enemy action."-Ian Fleming

what it tells me is that there are plenty of people out there who hate him simply because of his often right of center viewpoints and the fact that he has the highest rated primetime cable news show out there.

does he have an agenda? ofcourse. But his opinion makes up his show. he is no different than a columnist or editorialist, except he debates his position. his job is not to report hard news.

so possibly, maybe, definitely he has critics because they do not agree with his opinions.
So you think it was a perfectly acceptable expression of a rightwing point of view, when O'Reilly, defending Bush's plan to use torture in interrogating prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions, said it was okay because there was precedence because US soldiers murdered captured German SS soldiers and dumped them in a mass grave at the French village of Malmedy?

Of course, the FACT was that it was the German SS that murdered captured US soldiers at Malmedy, not the other way around. But why should we blame O'Reilly or his bosses at Fox for that? Obviously, it's just a rightwing point of view that makes it okay to take credit for crimes that were actually committed against us. And its just a rightwing point of view that says the best way to excuse wanting to commit a crime is to claim to have already committed it in the past. :rolleyes:

Also, O'Reilly did not make that "innocent mistake" just once. He did it on one broadcast more than a year ago, and was angrily and publicly corrected. And then he did it again, the same lie, earlier this year, and was angrily and publicly corrected again. He never retracted his false statements, but Fox did edit them out of his show's transcripts, just as if they had never happened.

EDIT: Oh, and it's just a rightwing point of view that makes it okay to obviously falsify information, such as reversing the roles of criminals and victims in WW2, claiming that US soldiers acted like SS, and turning a Republican into a Democrat, all as if no one would notice. Almost forgot that part.

what it tells me is that there are plenty of people out there who hate him simply because of his often right of center viewpoints and the fact that he has the highest rated primetime cable news show out there.

does he have an agenda? ofcourse. But his opinion makes up his show. he is no different than a columnist or editorialist, except he debates his position. his job is not to report hard news.

so possibly, maybe, definitely he has critics because they do not agree with his opinions.

He has critics because he's constantly wrong. Rush Limbaugh lies out of his ass on a constant basis, and he's got hundreds of thousands, if not millions of 'ditto heads' (fans) who tend to forget all the bullshit he spews on a daily basis and hail him as a great social commentator - same situation with Bill.

Americans need to boycott their media.

Liuzzo, I actually watch Fox News as I do the other networks. I notice faults, mistakes and even lies on all of the networks. CNN has a liberal bias, Fox has a conervative bias. That is how it is, but normally it is hard to tell the two networks apart. My guess is you are not a conservative or even a moderate, because I have yet to run across one Fox News critic who is not a liberal in some fashion.

Also, the New York Times has made more blunders than Fox News, why do you not wage a Crusade on them as well?

and Air America...please...that debacle was marketed as a left wing alternative to conservative talk radio...it is and always was supposed to be an opinion based broadcast.

I just don't enjoy lies. The point, which you are failing to realize is that this was not a mistake. On three seperate occasions they called a Republican a Democrat. Mistakes can be made, it's jsut when you outright lie for your partisan gain. Is there bias on other networks, yes. This argument is not about bias. It's about intentionally creating confusion to conflate the issue. Stop with the straw man routine as even I said Air America is liberally biased. Would you like to argue any other points I am not making?

Americans need to boycott their media.

Agreed! This idea should be broadcast though, through the... Mmm... I think there might be a flaw in this plan...

"Bill CLinton slept with an intern!!111!1eleven"

It was a BJ you idiot

It was a BJ you idiot

What a waste of a first post. :p

So you think it was a perfectly acceptable expression of a rightwing point of view, when O'Reilly, defending Bush's plan to use torture in interrogating prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions, said it was okay because there was precedence because US soldiers murdered captured German SS soldiers and dumped them in a mass grave at the French village of Malmedy?

Of course, the FACT was that it was the German SS that murdered captured US soldiers at Malmedy, not the other way around. But why should we blame O'Reilly or his bosses at Fox for that? Obviously, it's just a rightwing point of view that makes it okay to take credit for crimes that were actually committed against us. And its just a rightwing point of view that says the best way to excuse wanting to commit a crime is to claim to have already committed it in the past. :rolleyes:

Also, O'Reilly did not make that "innocent mistake" just once. He did it on one broadcast more than a year ago, and was angrily and publicly corrected. And then he did it again, the same lie, earlier this year, and was angrily and publicly corrected again. He never retracted his false statements, but Fox did edit them out of his show's transcripts, just as if they had never happened.


i won't comment on this because I did not see the show in question, do not know exactly what you are referring or what context Oreilly was speaking in.

What I do know is that this thread was started based on a report from a liberal blog which blames the entire network of fox news for the mistake of the Broadcast Captioner. Similar to the mistake when CNN flashed the word "lies" or "liar" in bright red over Dick Cheney as he gave a speech about Iraq.

:rolleyes:

alright i am done with this thread. no point in agruing this. if you don't like conservatives and don't like Fox News, tune them out. but any mistakes or "lies" they are guilty of are also present on the other networks.

"Once is accident, twice is coincidence.Three times is enemy action."-Ian Fleming

I knew it was something like that.

If we "tune them out", then, to borrow a phrase from the enemy, "The Terrorists Win", and this time it's actually true.

For democracy to stay alive, we need people to point out the faults in both sides.

I just don't enjoy lies. The point, which you are failing to realize is that this was not a mistake. On three seperate occasions they called a Republican a Democrat. Mistakes can be made, it's jsut when you outright lie for your partisan gain. Is there bias on other networks, yes. This argument is not about bias. It's about intentionally creating confusion to conflate the issue. Stop with the straw man routine as even I said Air America is liberally biased. Would you like to argue any other points I am not making?

I'm an R as In Barry Goldwater, John McCain, and George F. Will (The smartest conservative many of them don't listen to). I'm a more freedom, less taxes, less government intrusion, smaller government Republican, which makes me the opposite of a Bush-R. That should actually be a new column to mark off when registering. There's a big difference between the Bush-R's and myself.

I just don't enjoy lies. The point, which you are failing to realize is that this was not a mistake. On three seperate occasions they called a Republican a Democrat. Mistakes can be made, it's jsut when you outright lie for your partisan gain. Is there bias on other networks, yes. This argument is not about bias. It's about intentionally creating confusion to conflate the issue. Stop with the straw man routine as even I said Air America is liberally biased. Would you like to argue any other points I am not making?


ugh, ok one more post.

The reasoned I mentioned Air America was to say that they and Fox News are completely different. Air America is all opnion, and had been marketed as such from the beginning. Fox News is NOT all opinion, even if you distrust them. They have Hard News programs as well as News Analysis programs. CNN has a liberal bias but I will not compare them to Rush Limbaugh's EIB network or the 700 Club because those are strictly conservstive voices.

and intentionally creating confusion? lol, please...they didn't make a dent in peoples perceptions of Foley. Maybe I am an honest fool or maybe I just don't buy into partisan conspiracy theories...I don't know.

what i find disturbing here is how so many of you are more concerned with the fact that a deranged pedophile was a Republican and may help the Democrats win some seats in Congress than the fact that he tried to solicit sex from young boys.

I'm an R as In Barry Goldwater, John McCain, and George F. Will (The smartest conservative many of them don't listen to). I'm a more freedom, less taxes, less government intrusion, smaller government Republican, which makes me the opposite of a Bush-R. That should actually be a new column to mark off when registering. There's a big difference between the Bush-R's and myself.

I thought that was more of a libertarian?

i won't comment on this because I did not see the show in question, do not know exactly what you are referring or what context Oreilly was speaking in.
Cute. You get presented with a clear example of O'Reilly promulgating a lie, and all you can do is waffle over it. "Oh, well, I wasn't there..."

Allow me to help you out with the following sources:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200606030002

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/04.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197635,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O'Reilly_controversies

What I do know is that this thread was started based on a report from a liberal blog which blames the entire network of fox news for the mistake of the Broadcast Captioner. Similar to the mistake when CNN flashed the word "lies" or "liar" in bright red over Dick Cheney as he gave a speech about Iraq.

:rolleyes:
It is Fox's responsibility to correct such mistakes and, when they involve accusations of sexual misconduct and possible investigations, they also have a responsibility to acknowledge their mistake, retract it, and clarify the record.

Also, I found links to back up my claims against O'Reilly. Can you provide similar proof of precisely what CNN did to Cheney so we can judge that context, too?

alright i am done with this thread. no point in agruing this. if you don't like conservatives and don't like Fox News, tune them out. but any mistakes or "lies" they are guilty of are also present on the other networks.
What we don't like are liars.

We don't have much time for quitters, either, but that's okay, seeing as how they just quit usually.

I'm an R as In Barry Goldwater, John McCain, and George F. Will (The smartest conservative many of them don't listen to). I'm a more freedom, less taxes, less government intrusion, smaller government Republican, which makes me the opposite of a Bush-R. That should actually be a new column to mark off when registering. There's a big difference between the Bush-R's and myself.


The men you listed are neo-cons, just like George W. the type of Republican you described are Traditional Conservatives. Barry Goldwater is the father of the neo-con movement, John McCain has described him as his idol. are you sure you're a republican/conservative?

What we don't like are liars.

We don't have much time for quitters, either, but that's okay, seeing as how they just quit usually.

quitting? nice personal shot there. I am not quitting, I just don't like talking to brickwalls. no ground is going to be made here because this "discussion" centers around the core beliefs of some people. I might as well try and talk an Evangelical into becoming a Neo-Pagan.

consider my exit a cut and run strategy. ;)

With so many Republicans being exposed for their crimes it's time we clean house. Or would you not agree with that? Wouldn't you prefer that our party actually be the party of moral standards rather than just shouting it from the highest mountain? Between coingate, foley,Abramoff, etc. our party looks like a big F'ing joke. Perhaps people wouldn't be so enamoured with his Republican status if more Republicans live the life they profess others should. I'll start with myself as I know I live by my stadnards and morals. Please join me and do the same.

what i find disturbing here is how so many of you are more concerned with the fact that a deranged pedophile was a Republican and may help the Democrats win some seats in Congress than the fact that he tried to solicit sex from young boys.

I have to say, I've seen a lot made of the fact that Foley is a Republican, and while to a degree it is the job of a Democratic politician to make effective use of an obvious weakness amongst the opposing party, it certainly does seem to miss the point...unless of course I'm mistaken in my assumption that scandal and moral vacuousness is something that affects both parties, not just the Republicans.

The men you listed are neo-cons, just like George W. the type of Republican you described are Traditional Conservatives. Barry Goldwater is the father of the neo-con movement, John McCain has described him as his idol. are you sure you're a republican/conservative?

George Will is a neo-con? Wow, that's news to me since he disagrees with much of what Bush does. Actually the father of the Neo-con movement is Ronald Reagan. The people who call themselves Neo-cons actually were called "neo-reaganites" in the beginning. These include Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol and teh rest of the PNAC crowd. Goldwater was a tradtional conservative much in the way I am. Wow, I pegged you wrong as I thought I was debating someone who did their homework. Neo=new which can hardly describe Goldwater. The neo-cons culminating their postions back in 1998 which can hardly becalled the Goldwater era. I'm ashamed of myself for giving you so much credit.

Agreed! This idea should be broadcast though, through the... Mmm... I think there might be a flaw in this plan...

You're still thinking in media-mind. They should boycott it because a broadcast told them to, they should do it because it's a good idea. Besides, I didn't mean "media" as in the format, just the people who provide them with information, after altering that information to their liking.

Also, I wasn't being completely serious.

Mistake or intentional error? We lie you decide! Fox News should just come out an announce it for God's sake. At least when AL Franken spouts off on his program you know it has a liberal bias. These jackasses work with their stupid slogans the same way the Bush camp does. "Fairly Bullshit" should be their new one. Three seperate times they label Foley as a Democrat and we all know this to be not true. So tell me, was this a simple mistake, or another example of their deceit upon the American ADHD public?

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3570
:upyours:

Zut alors and major oh noes to my vibe man! Are you suggesting bias?!?!?

By a major news source?!?!?

Towards a political party?!?!? OMFGBBQ!

Thus concludes the sarcasm part of this post.
Let us not mince words here then.
Better still let this thread die the death it deserves or better still raise to the heights of ecstacy on the wings of Fox sux and Bush is teh debul posts.

Ive got a thread to start regarding party hacks of every stripe.

At least they got the man's name right. His party doesnt really matter except to party hacks shit stirrers and dorks with poliblogs.

The men you listed are neo-cons, just like George W. the type of Republican you described are Traditional Conservatives. Barry Goldwater is the father of the neo-con movement, John McCain has described him as his idol. are you sure you're a republican/conservative?

This is another "mistake." According to John Dean and Goldwater's daughter and granddaughter (who just released a bio-documentary about him), all of whom knew the man, Goldwater was vehemently opposed to the neo-con movement. He denounced them as radicals in both private and public statements. How can you now claim that he created the movement?

With so many Republicans being exposed for their crimes it's time we clean house. Or would you not agree with that? Wouldn't you prefer that our party actually be the party of moral standards rather than just shouting it from the highest mountain? Between coingate, foley,Abramoff, etc. our party looks like a big F'ing joke. Perhaps people wouldn't be so enamoured with his Republican status if more Republicans live the life they profess others should. I'll start with myself as I know I live by my stadnards and morals. Please join me and do the same.


Yes I can agree and do agree with what you said. as far as living by my standards and morals...I hope your last line was not a veiled insinuation that I do not because I have given you no valid reason to reach that conclusion.

I am very upset with how the Republicans are mismanaging our government right now...but the problem is that I do not see the Democrats as offering a viable alternative on any of the issues i care about. all I see them doing is attacking Bush...I am sick of hearing about him. What I want to hear is real solutions to problems.

I also do not trust most democrats with National Defense. The problem is we are suffocating under this 2 party system and it seems we will never be able to break it.

The only man who I can and will support with enthusiasm this upcoming election is Senator Lieberman.

The men you listed are neo-cons, just like George W. the type of Republican you described are Traditional Conservatives. Barry Goldwater is the father of the neo-con movement, John McCain has described him as his idol. are you sure you're a republican/conservative?



quitting? nice personal shot there. I am not quitting, I just don't like talking to brickwalls. no ground is going to be made here because this "discussion" centers around the core beliefs of some people. I might as well try and talk an Evangelical into becoming a Neo-Pagan.

consider my exit a cut and run strategy. ;)
And more "mistakes." Care to clarify the record and make clear that Liuzzo did not make the comment about you quitting? That was me. (EDIT: I enjoy the way you edited a response to his post to attach an uncredited quote from my post to it. Bill, is that you?) Such carelessness on your part is making me understand why you don't see anything wrong with Fox playing fast and loose with the facts.

With so many Republicans being exposed for their crimes it's time we clean house. Or would you not agree with that? Wouldn't you prefer that our party actually be the party of moral standards rather than just shouting it from the highest mountain? Between coingate, foley,Abramoff, etc. our party looks like a big F'ing joke. Perhaps people wouldn't be so enamoured with his Republican status if more Republicans live the life they profess others should. I'll start with myself as I know I live by my stadnards and morals. Please join me and do the same.

Respect to you, then. Regardless of your political affiliation or how you feel about homosexuals, I'll respect you as long as you're true to yourself and you don't lie to others. I can disagree with you, and in feudal Japan I might have even killed you in a duel, but it would've been an honorable death given to someone whom I have no contempt for.

It was a BJ you idiot

Thank you for your input Monica

This is another "mistake." According to John Dean and Goldwater's daughter and granddaughter (who just released a bio-documentary about him), all of whom knew the man, Goldwater was vehemently opposed to the neo-con movement. He denounced them as radicals in both private and public statements. How can you now claim that he created the movement?


the documentary you speak of, the HBO one, take a close look at it. who is interviewed? they are all left wing liberals or Democrats. That is an absurd documentary.

Neoconservatives of today, such as the Weekly Standard editor credit Goldwater with the Neo-Con movement.

trust me on this one, I know who neo-cons are and Barry "lets use nukes in Vietnam" Goldwater put neo-conservatism on the map.

Thank you for your input Monica

<3

Respect to you, then. Regardless of your political affiliation or how you feel about homosexuals, I'll respect you as long as you're true to yourself and you don't lie to others. I can disagree with you, and in feudal Japan I might have even killed you in a duel, but it would've been an honorable death given to someone whom I have no contempt for.

I have no problems with gay people. Remember, Republicans are for less government and staying out of the personal lives of others. I know this may come as a shock to you since 1994, but that's what a traditonal conservative is. I don't really give a flying F who you sleep with, providing they are of consenting age. Two adults may make whatever decisons they wish.

And more "mistakes." Care to clarify the record and make clear that Liuzzo did not make the comment about you quitting? That was me. (EDIT: I enjoy the way you edited a response to his post to attach an uncredited quote from my post to it. Bill, is that you?) Such carelessness on your part is making me understand why you don't see anything wrong with Fox playing fast and loose with the facts.


what the heck are you talking about? I edited my post to add in the comment about me quitting instead of posting yet another new post in this thread. i figured who ever wrote it would recognize it as their own words and respond if they felt the need.

and you're accusing me of what now?

I have no problems with gay people. Remember, Republicans are for less government and staying out of the personal lives of others. I know this may come as a shock to you since 1994, but that's what a traditonal conservative is. I don't really give a flying F who you sleep with, providing they are of consenting age. Two adults may make whatever decisons they wish.

Then you're not of the republican majority on that issue.

As for 'staying out of the personal lives of others'... not entirely true. Wiretapping, for instance.

And I'm still fairly certain you're more of a libertarian than a republican.

Muravyets:

you seem partial to conspiracies, you just accused me of conspiring...something. Well, quite a few conspiracy nuts on the right wing had a field day with CNNs "Technical Glitch". I said it was the word "lies" or "liar" plastered on his face but I was mistaken, instead it was a black X. Some said this was done intentionally by CNN to give the impression whatever Cheney is about to say is a lie. You asked for links, here are some stories from a liberal and a conservative sight...

http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/2005/11/cheney_latest_m.html

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3cnc.htm

I forgot the specifics of what happened here because it was a non-issue to me. though some screamed conspiracy. I could imagine what you would do if this "glitch" had happened on Fox and to a critic of Bush or another Conservative or Fox itself.

EDIT> i made a grammatical adjustment

Then you're not of the republican majority on that issue.

As for 'staying out of the personal lives of others'... not entirely true. Wiretapping, for instance.

And I'm still fairly certain you're more of a libertarian than a republican.

I do tend to have a libertarian bend on some issues. Notice though I qualified it with pre 1994. Wiretapping is something brand new from the makers of constitutional law for scoundrels. I prefer that my neighbors leave me alone and let me judge my pwn behavior for myself. I find nothing worse than supposed "christians" damning me to hell for my lack of restricting others rights. The victory in the free exchange of ideas goes to the suerior idea s long as the argument is fought fair. Not all Republicans are wire-tapping homeophobes so try not to generalize. Many of us still know what teh party of Lincoln is all about. We are truly the uniters and not dividers. We know the only true "decider" is God in whatever form you choose to worship him.

the documentary you speak of, the HBO one, take a close look at it. who is interviewed? they are all left wing liberals or Democrats. That is an absurd documentary.
Do you get paid to pretend to be an idiot? Because nobody could say something as dumb as this by accident, so you must be an actor or something, right? Come clean. You're in character, right?

I'm talking about the new HBO documentary "Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater." link:
http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/mrconservative/

The primary interviewee in that documentary is Barry Goldwater. You know, that legendary liberal and Democrat. Most of it is a compilation of films of his speeches, his lectures, his interviews with television journalists, and him speaking informally with friends and family. Other interviewees include his wife and children about their personal relationships with him.

And if you think John Dean -- remember, the guy from Watergate? -- is a leftwing liberal or a Democrat then, brother, are you sure which party you signed up for? You don't seem to know which team is which.

Neoconservatives of today, such as the Weekly Standard editor credit Goldwater with the Neo-Con movement.
Who, where, and when, please. Because I have never heard any such thing claimed, and believe me, I keep an eye on neo-cons.

trust me on this one, I know who neo-cons are
You're not proving that too well so far.

and Barry "lets use nukes in Vietnam" Goldwater put neo-conservatism on the map.
No, he didn't. Please see the following Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

Normally, I don't cite Wiki, but sometimes, as on this occasion, it posts a good overview article with sufficient links to supporting sources that it serves the purpose. I read this extremely long article about the history and origins of neo-conservatism, and it does not mention Barry Goldwater even once.

It cites as the originators of neo-con thought who first put neo-conservatism "on the map" the same names we have all been hearing for over 20 years: Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol, and Norman Podhoretz. Hell, it even gives credit to poor Leon Trotsky for shaping those former leftists' thinking in the first place.

But Barry Goldwater had nothing to do with it, according to both himself and all the historians.

what the heck are you talking about? I edited my post to add in the comment about me quitting instead of posting yet another new post in this thread. i figured who ever wrote it would recognize it as their own words and respond if they felt the need.

and you're accusing me of what now?
:rolleyes: You poor thing. It must be hard to keep track of facts when your idea of how to do it comes from Fox News.

1) You were responding to a comment from Liuzzo.

2) I made the sarcastic quitter comment in response to your remark that you were leaving the thread. It was part of a larger response to you that had nothing to do with anything said by Liuzzo.

3) Somehow, my comment about "quitters" got added to your response to Liuzzo. But in the quote box for it, you did not credit it to me, thus making it appear as if Liuzzo had said it, just like Fox made it appear as if Foley is a Democrat by typing a "D" instead of an "R".

4) I know you added the "quitters" comment to your Liuzzo response in an edit because I had already commented on that response before it had any reference to "quitters" and "personal insults" in it. I posted my response and noticed that your comment had gotten longer than it was when I first hit the "quote" button.

SO THEN, what am I accusing you of?

I'm accusing you of being too in love with your own point of view to bother to actually use it to look at the facts. Rather than correct your mistakes, you compound them with more mistakes and defenses of mistakes that are based on mistakes, until finally nothing you are saying is in anyway true.

Muravyets:

you seem partial to conspiracies, you just accused me of conspiring...something. Well, quite a few conspiracy nuts on the right wing had a field day with CNNs "Technical Glitch". I said it was the word "lies" or "liar" plastered on his face but I was mistaken, instead it was a black X. Some said this was done intentionally by CNN to give the impression whatever Cheney is about to say is a lie. You asked for links, here are some stories from a liberal and a conservative sight...

http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/2005/11/cheney_latest_m.html

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3cnc.htm

I forgot the specifics of what happened here because it was a non-issue to me. though some screamed conspiracy. I could imagine what you would do if this "glitch" had happened on Fox and to a critic of Bush or another Conservative or Fox itself.

EDIT> i made a grammatical adjustment
And you seem fond of making up stories. I am not accusing you of "conspiring" in anything. I am accusing you of being too thickheaded to admit you made a mistake. You don't need conspirators. You can be wrong all by yourself.

At least they got the man's name right. His party doesnt really matter except to party hacks shit stirrers and dorks with poliblogs.Oh, I think his party affiliation matters to voters in his district and to voters in other districts who look at this situation as an example of failed party leadership--or do you think Nancy Pelosi deserves to be blamed for this entire fiasco?

Oh, I think his party affiliation matters to voters in his district and to voters in other districts who look at this situation as an example of failed party leadership--or do you think Nancy Pelosi deserves to be blamed for this entire fiasco?

"party hacks shit stirrers and dorks with poliblogs." all have the ability to vote, as well.

dp

Do you get paid to pretend to be an idiot? Because nobody could say something as dumb as this by accident, so you must be an actor or something, right? Come clean. You're in character, right?

I'm talking about the new HBO documentary "Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater." link:
http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/mrconservative/

idiot huh? Glad to see you take the high road.

I am pretty sure I mentioned HBO when referring to that documentary. What other HBO Goldwater documentary is there? In this Documentary, select snippets of Goldwater are shown with commentary from such conservative thinkers like ... Hillary Clinton, Walter Cronkite, Helen Thomas, Andy Rooney, James Carville, Robert MacNeil and every liberals favorite token conservative, George Will.

The goal of this Documentary seemed to be to paint Goldwater as a liberal, as well as the conservative movement. How the hell can the true story of "Mr. Conservative" be told through the eyes of liberals? Even Jon Stewart on the Daily Show had a few laughs at this "documentary".

The primary interviewee in that documentary is Barry Goldwater. You know, that legendary liberal and Democrat. Most of it is a compilation of films of his speeches, his lectures, his interviews with television journalists, and him speaking informally with friends and family. Other interviewees include his wife and children about their personal relationships with him.

goal was to try and draw a contrast to him and present day conservatives. The piece especially critical of social conservatives and christian conservatives. It is more than just a biography on Goldwater.

And if you think John Dean -- remember, the guy from Watergate? -- is a leftwing liberal or a Democrat then, brother, are you sure which party you signed up for? You don't seem to know which team is which.


Who, where, and when, please. Because I have never heard any such thing claimed, and believe me, I keep an eye on neo-cons.

Teams. I hate how there are "teams" in the first place.

It was his grandaughter who was the main push behind this film. She is a big critic of Bush, Rove, Cheney, todayd conervatives, the 90s Gingrich conservatives...hell even Ronald Reagan!

and John Dean is right up there with Al Franken and Michael Moore saying Bush should be impeached! lol, please. David Horowitz used to be a staunch liberal, now look at him. Same deal with John Dean. I may have my problems with Bush, but impeachment? from a guy who worked for an administration who used the most ruthless of tactics in vietnam? please! In your eye however, I guess if he worked for a Republican and now criticizes a republican, then whatever he is saying must be the gospel.

This documentary if anything is a hit piece on traditionalists and religous conservatives. The ones who have gained the most power in recent years.


No, he didn't. Please see the following Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

Normally, I don't cite Wiki, but sometimes, as on this occasion, it posts a good overview article with sufficient links to supporting sources that it serves the purpose. I read this extremely long article about the history and origins of neo-conservatism, and it does not mention Barry Goldwater even once.

It cites as the originators of neo-con thought who first put neo-conservatism "on the map" the same names we have all been hearing for over 20 years: Leo Strauss, Irving Kristol, and Norman Podhoretz. Hell, it even gives credit to poor Leon Trotsky for shaping those former leftists' thinking in the first place.

But Barry Goldwater had nothing to do with it, according to both himself and all the historians.

you know what, I will concede that I am confused as to what exactly constitutes a neo conservative. I just did some reading of my own and it seems not even conservatives themselves, or their opponents know exactly what a neoconservative is besides the literal meaning which is "new conservative" or a liberal who crossed over.

I saw neocons as secular intellectuals who focused on intervensionist foreign policies to spread not just democracy but american ideals as well. Barry Goldwater's most famous/infamous words were when he endorsed "Extremism in the defense of Liberty...". This is what neocons seem to live by today.

So I will admit I was confused about the neocon origins. Goldwater was not the father of neoconservatism, he was just around as they were rising to power. His foreign policy does resemble that of a neoconservative. And George W Bush, i should add, seems to be a combination of paleo and neo conservatives though his spending habits are out of control.

Edit> I definitely feel sheepish for screwing that up. :(

Oh, man, the Daily Show had a field day with this one.

*cue golf clap (http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=76256)*

and John Dean is right up there with Al Franken and Michael Moore saying Bush should be impeached! lol, please.

Wait - disagreeing with one politician now changes all of one's political beliefs? I'm pretty sure one can find Bush's behavior shameful without suddenly thinking, "Hey, you know what? I'm suddenly in favor of big governments, welfare programs, a woman's right to choose, gay rights, and so forth!" Your argument seems to be that you have no political affiliation unless you're such a partisan hack that you'd spare someone impeachment solely because he's a member of your party, even though you would otherwise believe it was merited. I return your "lol, please" to you.

The natural assumption is that a gay near pedophile congressman is a Democrat.
Fox is probably guilty only of an ignorant typesetter. ABC did far worse claiming the page was a minor when in fact at the age of the actionable IMs he was an adult, which was, of course, the Barney Frank defense for having real sex with his boy toy and letting him run a bordello in his basement.

Wait - disagreeing with one politician now changes all of one's political beliefs? I'm pretty sure one can find Bush's behavior shameful without suddenly thinking, "Hey, you know what? I'm suddenly in favor of big governments, welfare programs, a woman's right to choose, gay rights, and so forth!" Your argument seems to be that you have no political affiliation unless you're such a partisan hack that you'd spare someone impeachment solely because he's a member of your party, even though you would otherwise believe it was merited. I return your "lol, please" to you.


no i just think impeachment is extreme, especially in the middle of the war on terror and when the second guy in line would be worse than the guy in power now.

republicans impeached clinton, yes over a much more minor issue, but it still distracted him enough from real threats in the world just as al-qaeda. if republicans blame Clinton for dropping the ball on al-qaeda they also have to blame themselves.

edit> and just because the guy calling for impeachment is of the same party as the man he wants impeached, does not mean he should have instant credibility. internal politics within a party can be just as nasty as external politics between opposing parties.

no i just think impeachment is extreme, especially in the middle of the war on terror and when the second guy in line would be worse than the guy in power now.

republicans impeached clinton, yes over a much more minor issue, but it still distracted him enough from real threats in the world just as al-qaeda. if republicans blame Clinton for dropping the ball on al-qaeda they also have to blame themselves.

edit> and just because the guy calling for impeachment is of the same party as the man he wants impeached, does not mean he should have instant credibility. internal politics within a party can be just as nasty as external politics between opposing parties.

I'm not giving John Dean instant credibility or saying that impeachment isn't extreme. (I don't necessarily think it is, but that's a debate for another thread.) I'm simply saying it is absurd to conclude from the fact that Dean disagrees with Bush's behavior that Dean is in any way, shape, or form, a "liberal."

no i just think impeachment is extreme, especially in the middle of the war on terror and when the second guy in line would be worse than the guy in power now.

republicans impeached clinton, yes over a much more minor issue, but it still distracted him enough from real threats in the world just as al-qaeda. if republicans blame Clinton for dropping the ball on al-qaeda they also have to blame themselves.

edit> and just because the guy calling for impeachment is of the same party as the man he wants impeached, does not mean he should have instant credibility. internal politics within a party can be just as nasty as external politics between opposing parties.

Of course, Clinton was doing a pretty good job despite his congressional distractions, and would have done even better if left alone.

Bush is doing a horrible job, as are the Republicans in general. It can only go well for us if they are distracted and/or removed.

Of course, Clinton was doing a pretty good job despite his congressional distractions, and would have done even better if left alone.

Bush is doing a horrible job, as are the Republicans in general. It can only go well for us if they are distracted and/or removed.

Clinton did a decent job in 90s, as did the new republican congress freshly elected in 1994.

I would not say Bush is doing a horrible job today though. The Republicans in congress are screwing up fir sure and the Bush has made plenty of mistakes but at the same time the Dow is at a record high, we are a net job gain in the millions, unemployment is at 4.7%, the national deficit will be cut in half by 2008, gas prices and oil are actually starting to drop and there has not been a terror attack on U.S. soil since 9-11. What I see right now at this moment in time is a tale of two Presidencies and it could go either way.

ofcourse I am pessimistic when it comes to issues such as Border Control, Comprehensive Immigration Reform which should include a path to citizenship, Stem Cell Research Federal Funding, Troop Levels in Iraq, Comprehensive Energy Reform, Trade Deficit due to misuse of free trade policy and out of control domestic spending.

you know what, I will concede that I am confused as to what exactly constitutes a neo conservative. I just did some reading of my own and it seems not even conservatives themselves, or their opponents know exactly what a neoconservative is besides the literal meaning which is "new conservative" or a liberal who crossed over.

I saw neocons as secular intellectuals who focused on intervensionist foreign policies to spread not just democracy but american ideals as well. Barry Goldwater's most famous/infamous words were when he endorsed "Extremism in the defense of Liberty...". This is what neocons seem to live by today.

So I will admit I was confused about the neocon origins. Goldwater was not the father of neoconservatism, he was just around as they were rising to power. His foreign policy does resemble that of a neoconservative. And George W Bush, i should add, seems to be a combination of paleo and neo conservatives though his spending habits are out of control.

Edit> I definitely feel sheepish for screwing that up. :(

Neo-conservatism is a difficult term to pin down precisely, but Goldwater probably falls far more under the definition of an offensive realist, not a neo-con. He never justified Vietnam on the grounds of spreading democracy or freedom, nor on the more cynical point of opening American strategic access to the region. He justified it on the grounds that the international system is a zero-sum system, and if we don't win, the Soviets would, which was unnacceptable. That's classic realist thinking, which differs significantly from either the neo-con sloganeering, which is to bring democracy by force, or what might be considered the more realistic appraisal of their intentions, which is to secure a permanent military presence in the Middle East and by extension strategic control over the region.

Put very simply, Goldwater wasn't interested in making Vietnam a democracy or using it as a base to control Southeast Asia. Southeast Asia was only interesting to him insofar as communists were there and communism had to be defeated. As such, he's a classical realist with what we might today call offensive realist leanings, not a neo-con.

******************************************************

On a side note, I am curious to know what exactly the point of all this conservative rhetoric being spouted is. If some Democrats have allowed homosexual relations between pages and Congressmen, does that make what Tom Foley did okay? If not, then what the hell does it matter? I was under the impression that the whole reason conservatives took power in 1994 was to be better than the Democrats they replaced, not more of the same.

Clinton did a decent job in 90s, as did the new republican congress freshly elected in 1994.

I would not say Bush is doing a horrible job today though. The Republicans in congress are screwing up fir sure and the Bush has made plenty of mistakes but at the same time the Dow is at a record high, we are a net job gain in the millions, unemployment is at 4.7%, the national deficit will be cut in half by 2008, gas prices and oil are actually starting to drop and there has not been a terror attack on U.S. soil since 9-11.

You realize that deficit statement means "we will be hemoraging cash half as quickly by 2008. We were actually gaining it under Clinton.

Unemployment is a useless number as it is calculated these days. It only counts the number of people who are collecting unemployment. Not the number of people who would like to work if they could find it.

Terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4516119.stm)