"What Liberal media"??

[Gimpy]

If you believe there is liberal mainstream media in the United States, then you were probably Ann Coulter's bunkmate in the Heritage Foundation psycho ward for rabid right wing psychotics. With mercilessly thorough documentation, Eric Alterman decimates the farcical notion that the American media is dominated by liberals.
Given a corporate-owned press that benefits from the deregulation and tax cut environment that enriches the wealthy, it's a testament to the robust lungs and potty-mouthed tenacity of right wing media celebrities that they can perpetuate the myth of a progressive mainstream media.
Alterman's book is a touchstone of truth amidst the dross of mad rants by manic GOP "pundit celebrities." Alterman, for instance, documents how the Wall Street Journal "editors are so deeply committed to the far-right propaganda they espouse, they frequently contradict the reporting in their own newspaper." Armed with 40 pages of footnotes, Alterman vanquishes any notion of a liberal press. What we are left with is a media that serves as a propaganda news outlet for the right wing of the Republican party. The modern D.C. journalist, for the most part, is really a public relations writer for the White House. Even if you've known how "in the tank" the media is with the Republican Party, this book will get you even angrier. When you finish, make a commitment to voice your objections to the media as often as you can.
The question of whose interests the media protects -- and how -- has achieved holy-grail-like significance. Is media bias keeping us from getting the whole story? If so, who is at fault? Is it the liberals who are purported to be running the newsrooms, television and radio stations of this country, duping an unsuspecting public into mistaking their party line for news? Or is it the conservatives who have identified media bias as a reliably inflammatory rallying cry around which to consolidate their political base as they cynically "work the refs?" The media has become so pervasive in our lives that regardless of exactly where on the ideological fence you sit, the question of media bias has become all but unavoidable.
Most of the criticism (and anger) has so far emanated from the political Right, which has offered us the rather unconvincing argument that a systematic Left bias is destroying the quality of news and debate in our country today. Journalist and historian Eric Alterman begs to differ.
What Liberal Media? confronts the question of liberal bias and, in so doing, provides a sharp and utterly convincing assessment of the realities of political bias in the news. In distinct contrast to the conclusions reached by Ann Coulter, Bernard Goldberg, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly, Alterman finds the media to be, on the whole, far more conservative than liberal, though it is possible to find evidence for both views. The fact that conservatives howl so much louder and more effectively than liberals is one significant reason that big media is always on its guard for "liberal" bias but gives conservative bias a free pass.
After reading What Liberal Media? you will understand that the real news story of recent years is not whether this newspaper, or that news anchor, is biased but rather to what extent the entire news industry is organized to communicate conservative views and push our politics to the right-regardless of how "liberal" any given reporter may be.
What People Are Saying about "What Liberal Media?"
The myth of the liberal media is an idea that is gaining currency; this is a strong opening salvo in that much-needed discussion."
-- Ilene Cooper, Booklist, American Library Association
"The incredulity begins with the title What Liberal Media?, journalist Eric Alterman's refutation of widely flung charges of left-wing bias, and never lets up. The book is unlikely to make many friends among conservative media talking heads. Alterman picks apart charges made by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Sean Hannity, and others (even the subtitle refers to a popular book by former CBS producer Bernard Goldberg that argues a lefty slant in news coverage). But the perspectives of less-incendiary figures, including David Broder and Howard Kurtz, are also dissected in Alterman's quest to prove that not only do the media lack a liberal slant but that quite the opposite is true. . . . For liberals hoping someone will take off the gloves and mix it up with the verbal brawlers of the right, Eric Alterman is a champion."
-- John Moe for Amazon.com.
"Alterman . . . seeks to debunk the notion [of a liberal bias in media] and goes so far as to argue that bastions of alleged liberalism like the Washington Post and ABC News 'have grown increasingly cowed by false complaints of liberal bias and hence, progressively more sympathetic to the most outlandish conservative complaints.' He largely succeeds: whatever your politics, Alterman delivers well-documented, well-argued research in compulsively readable form."
-- Publisher's Weekly
*****************************

[SuperScout]

More bias?
More and more reporters are stepping out to disclose bias in the press.
First was CBS News reporter Bernard Goldberg, a 28-year veteran of the network until being forced off the air, charging that bias at the big-three network is so obvious and comes so naturally to media luminaries such as Dan Rather that "it's hardly worth discussing anymore."
Oh, yes, it is worth discussing, says Peter Collins, for nine years ABC News' correspondent in Central America, reporting for "World News Tonight" and "Nightline."
Recently retired from journalism and feeling "liberated," Mr. Collins charges that ABC anchorman Peter Jennings manipulated news scripts to praise the former Soviet-backed Marxist Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.
Telling his story to CNSNews.com, Mr. Collins charges that Mr. Jennings dictated changes in his television script to sing the praises of the Sandinista government's "new, unselfish society," for reducing illiteracy and "launch[ing] the biggest land reform in Central America."
Mr. Jennings "took a piece that I had written about the 10th anniversary of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua [in 1989] and first asked his producer to correct it for me and then he himself called me up in Managua and essentially dictated to me what I should say," Mr. Collins says.
"Basically what Mr. Jennings wanted was for me to make a favorable pronouncement about the 10 years of the Sandinista revolution, and he called me up, massaged my script in a way that I no longer recognized it."
ABC News publicist Cathie Levine told CNSNews.com that neither Mr. Jennings nor the network had anything to say about it.

[Gimpy]

"common ground"---I have NEVER had much use for Peter Jennings either. However, I must say that my "opinion" of Rush Limbuger and Bill O'Reilly are just as revolting as is my opinion of Jennings.

No matter, Eric Alterman makes good, sound and convincing arguements for as much (if not MORE) "bias" from the "Korn-survatives" as there supposedly is from the "liberals"!

[SuperScout]

Kindly consider the source: Eric Alterman is about as unbiased and as far left as Fidel Castro, so how could he pen any objective piece about how liberal or not the press is? On the other hand, Bernie Goldberg was an insider at the highest levels, and witnessed firsthand the liberal slant and delivery of the news at CBS. His book blows the cover of pseudo-objectivity off the press and documents this phoniness in great detail in many of the major news broadcasters. There was a time during the elections of 2000 when Tom Brokaw asked a Democratic political operative, when viewing election results, "Does this report mean that we won the state of Missouri?" "We won"? Objective? It was probably more than a Freudian slip on Brokaw's part, but then it was no surprise, or shouldn't have been any surprise.

And re-read the original post of yours: "...corporate owned press..." Is this a touch of class-warfare, or a thinkly veiled attack on capitalism? Who is supposed to own the press, the "people"? And why start off a piece with name calling, such as "...rabid right wing psychotics..." Was this a cut-and-paste review, or is this your way of starting an argument? Neither is very bright.

[reconeil]

Plus, your stating: "The fact that conservatives howl so much louder and more effective than liberals...", pretty-much proves it. After all, anyone owning a TV and witnessing a debate between most Conservative or Liberal Senators or Congressmen know full well that your: "The fact..." is nothing more than pure liberal fiction and quite the factual reverse of what you stated. Hell, most liberals asked a simple question will rant and rave until The Moderator cuts them off,...and still won't answer a simple question not to their liking and/or counter Dems/Libs.

Still, and in fairness to liberals, it must be admitted that they most all wild-eyed and fanatically stick-to-their-guns (naturally not real guns since detesting same in private hands),...whether caught flat-out-lying and stealing, being biasedly superior, and even when placing the well being of foreigners, foreign ethnicities, and races above the vast majority of The American Citizenry. Regardless, from Libs such is to be expected.

So, and what really bothers me is that most Conservative Senators and Congressmen on TV are so-damn-civil. Even when being nonsensically called starvers of children and old folks, and being everything but mothered, they show no emotion,...not even a well deserved punch-in-the-mouth.

The best that The Conservative wousses can come-up-with are words like: "I guess that my distinguished (even though obvious liar) colleague and I will have agree to disagree". Further NONSENSE.

Neil :md: disappointed Conservative

[Gimpy]

Not very bright---

Anyway, I kinda liked that part about the "rabid, right-wing psychotics". ESPECIALLy when used in the "context" he used it about being "Ann Coulter's bunkmate in the Heritage Foundations psycho ward"---Because that's JUST where SHE belongs.

I also like the part about---"with merciless, thorough documention" he proves his point!

BTW---it WAS a "cut and paste review"---But NOT to "start an arguement" -- Only to PROVE that the "myth" is just THAT--a MYTH perpetrated and perpetually propagandized by the likes of Rush Limburger, Neil Boortz, Ann Coulter, George Will, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and that CHAMPION of "right-wing" morals and values and virtues his-seff---the biggest HYPOCRITE of them ALL, you know that guy that wrote all those childrens books about, VIRTUES and VALUES and is the SPOKESPERSON for ALL that is supposed to be R-I-G-H-T (wing that is) William Bennet. You know that fellow who thinks it's O.K. to gamble away more than $8 million while "professing" to be "virtuous" while he HID his HABIT of gambling away and WASTED some of his families wealth that could have been "used" for a more "moral" purpose. Talk about a "HYPOCRITE", WOW!!

Hey Neil (and Super)---THERE'S a fellow (Bennet) who's "wild eyed and sticks to his guns"--Talk about being "biasedly SUPERIOR" to the point of hilarious hypocrisy--you guys have got a good one there alright!!

[reconeil]

What Bennet OR ANYBODY (especially those not on MY/OUR PAYROLL and/or Oath Taking Controllers) do with their personal money is irrelevent.

What is relevent TO MANY, is how Dems/Libs/Socialists want to take as much as possible of MY/OUR MONEY, and would like to preferentially disperse same as they alone see fit to The Connected, supporters and/or those affiliated with or beholding to "Them" somehow.

Besides, I personally could put MY MONEY to better use (even at Atlantic City),...than any bloated and all-encompassing government could ever do (France excluded since they've truly mastered socialism quite well).

Neil :b:

[Gimpy]

when the person espousing "virtues" over "vice" to our nations young folk ( and supports the so-called anti-
liberal" point of view" in doing so) can claim he's "not" got a "problem" with gambling---HORSE $HIT!

Check THIS OUT.

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

Newsweek: Bennett's gambling problem

VIRTUES AND VICES
Let?s also be honest that gambling would not be our first-choice vice if we were designing this fantasy-come-true from scratch. But gambling will do. It will definitely do. Bill Bennett has been exposed as a humbug artist who ought to be pelted off the public stage if he lacks the decency to slink quietly away as he is constantly calling on others to do. (Bennett on Monday issued a statement saying he was giving up gambling, adding, ?This is not an example I wish to set.?)
Although it may be impossible for anyone famous to become permanently discredited in American culture (a Bennett-like point I agree with), Bennett clearly deserves that distinction. There are those who will try to deny it to him. They will say:

Working his way down the list of other people?s pleasures, weaknesses, and uses of American freedom, he just happened to skip over his own. How convenient.

1.) He never specifically criticized gambling. This, if true, doesn?t show that Bennett is not a hypocrite. It just shows that he?s not a complete idiot. Working his way down the list of other people?s pleasures, weaknesses, and uses of American freedom, he just happened to skip over his own. How convenient. Is there some reason why his general intolerance of the standard vices does not apply to this one? None that he?s ever mentioned.
Open, say, Bennett?s The Broken Hearth: Reversing the Moral Collapse of the American Family, and read about how Americans overvalue ?unrestricted personal liberty.? How we must relearn to ?enter judgments on a whole range of behaviors and attitudes.? About how ?wealth and luxury ... often make it harder to deny the quest for instant gratification? because ?the more we attain, the more we want.? How would you have guessed, last week, that Bennett would regard a man who routinely ?cycle[s] several hundred thousand dollars in an evening? (his own description) sitting in an airless Las Vegas casino pumping coins into a slot machine or video game? Well, you would have guessed wrong! He thinks it?s perfectly OK as long as you don?t spend the family milk money.

2.) His gambling never hurt anyone else. This is, of course, the classic libertarian standard of permissible behavior, and I think it?s a good one. If a hypocrite is a person who says one thing and does another, the problem with Bennett is what he says ? not (as far as we know) what he does. Bennett can?t plead liberty now because opposing libertarianism is what his sundry crusades are all about. He wants to put marijuana smokers in jail. He wants to make it harder to get divorced. He wants more ?moral criticism of homosexuality? and ?declining to accept that what they do is right.?
Washington Monthly on Bennett

In all these cases, Bennett wants laws against or heightened social disapproval of activities that have no direct harmful effects on anyone except the participants. He argues that the activities in question are encouraging other, more harmful activities, or are eroding general social norms in some vague way. Empower America, one of Bennett?s several shirt-pocket mass movements, officially opposes the spread of legalized gambling, and the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, one of Bennett?s cleverer PR conceits, includes ?problem? gambling as a negative indicator of cultural health. So, Bennett doesn?t believe that gambling is harmless. He just believes that his own gambling is harmless. But by the standards he applies to everything else, it is not harmless.

Bennett has been especially critical of libertarian sentiments coming from intellectuals and the media elite. Smoking a bit of pot may not ruin their middle-class lives, but by smoking pot they create an atmosphere of toleration that can be disastrous for others who are not so well grounded. The Bill Bennett who can ooze disdain over this is the same Bill Bennett who apparently thinks he has no connection to all those ?problem? gamblers because he makes millions preaching virtue and they don?t.

3. He?s doing no harm to himself. From the information in Alter?s and Green?s articles, Bennett seems to be in deep denial about this. If it?s true that he?s lost $8 million in gambling casinos over 10 years, that surely is addictive or compulsive behavior no matter how good virtue has been to him financially. He claims to have won more than he has lost, which is virtually (that word again!) impossible playing the machines as Bennett apparently does. If he?s not in denial, then he?s simply lying, which is a definite non-virtue. And he?s spraying smarm like the worst kind of cornered politician ? telling the Washington Post, for example, that his gambling habit started with ?church bingo.?

Even as an innocent hobby, playing the slots is about as far as you can get from the image Bennett paints of his notion of the Good Life. Surely even a high-roller can?t ?cycle through? $8 million so quickly that family, church, and community don?t suffer. There are preachers who can preach an ideal they don?t themselves meet and even use their own weaknesses as part of the lesson. Bill Bennett has not been such a preacher. He is smug, disdainful, intolerant. He gambled on bluster, and lost.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[HARDCORE]

Honorable Gents -

Ain't America Great! We can all still espouse different views, slam-dunk either side of the aisle, and yet when push comes to shove, stand side by side to the death in our mutual defense!

"Two rights, after-all, have never made a wrong!" And were it not for differing views, we would, as it was in Iraq, and still is in Iran, North Korea, Cuba etc., all march to the same distorted drummer!

"One continues to learn through debate!"

"God, you guys are great!"

[Keith_Hixson]

The Old Fashion Liberal. Who believes that we need more social concerns in government and want to protect the little guy. But support America when it goes to war, and supports idealism of a democratic government.

The New Ultra Liberal that is anti Religion, anti American, and believes that Fidel Castro is a hero, that President Bush is fascist, etc. They need to find a reality pill to swallow. I can accept the ideologies of the old fashion liberal as another way of governing but these New Ultra Liberals are a scary bunch.

Though I may not always agree with Gimpy or the Lrrpster I know that they aren't anti-American. They fought and were wounded for their country and they have a right to their beliefs. Good men, however misguided they may be. :D

Isn't America Great with its free flow of ideas.

Keith

[reconeil]

Still, I fail to see where Bennet's gambling problem/addiction (or not?) is of national relevence,...as Gimpy seems to believe. Sure he's a notable. But, so what?

Bennet is a private sector citizen notable, much like The Hollywood Crowd of liberal and pro everything foreign fools are. Sure "He" is a well spoken conservative and must automatically be held to a much higher standard than most of: "The End justifies The Means" liberals/socialists. But, and since he too took no oath to The Citizenry just like The Hollywood and/or dribble-spouting liberal fanatics don't, why is he singled-out by liberals as being a GREAT SOCIETAL PROBLEM? Liberals/Socialists don't gamble?

Besides, and since apparently all liberals see nothing wrong with even OATH TAKERS having sex, drug, and lying addictions during working hours with subordinates,...why-the-hell should The Morally Superior Dems/Libs (in their eyes only) give-a-rat$-a$$ what some Private Sector Citizen does (or not) for SOLELY relaxing and WHILE NOT ON THE JOB? Or, and even for that matter,...while ON THE JOB at his Private Sector and/or NOT Taxpayer Paid For position and place of work.

Neil :cd:

[Keith_Hixson]

Well, if one preaches his or her gospel he must not get caught in the web of hypocrisy. However, according to the news I read, no one knows the exact amount of his gambling though there has been speculation and the casino isn't talking. But, he didn't rob anyone, steal from anyone, kill anyone, and it was his own money. The only thing I can see here is that he got caught in the wrong place and at the wrong time.

Several years ago I went to Nevada to pick up a cement truck for a friend. I had lunch in this restaurant and they gave us $2.00 to play the one arm bandit. I played until my $2.00 was gone. Didn't feel it was gambling because it wasn't my own money. But, if someone saw me pulling the handle, I would have been accused of gambling. Must be careful to have all the facts.

Keith

[Gimpy]

the "hypocrisy" of this "spokesperson" of the so-called "morally superior" right-wing radical types like Bennet.

But Neil, knowing how "open-minded" you are about the "failings" of some of those of "right-headed" and "Super-Kornsurvativeness" types, I doubt it will very much after all. But, WTH here goes anyway.


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

We should know that too much of anything, even a good thing, may prove to be our undoing...[We] need ... to set definite boundaries on our appetites."

--The Book of Virtues, by William J. Bennett

No person can be more rightly credited with making morality and personal responsibility an integral part of the political debate than William J. Bennett. For more than 20 years, as a writer, speaker, government official, and political operative, Bennett has been a commanding general in the culture wars. As Ronald Reagan's chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, he was the scourge of academic permissiveness. Later, as Reagan's secretary of education, he excoriated schools and students for failing to set and meet high standards. As drug czar under George H.W. Bush, he applied a get-tough approach to drug use, arguing that individuals have a moral responsibility to own up to their addiction. Upon leaving public office, Bennett wrote The Book of Virtues, a compendium of parables snatched up by millions of parents and teachers across the political spectrum. Bennett's crusading ideals have been adopted by politicians of both parties, and implemented in such programs as character education classes in public schools--a testament to his impact.

But Bennett, a devout Catholic, has always been more Old Testament than New. Even many who sympathize with his concerns find his combative style haughty and unforgiving. Democrats in particular object to his partisan sermonizing, which portrays liberals as inherently less moral than conservatives, more given to excusing personal weaknesses, and unwilling to confront the vices that destroy families. During the impeachment of Bill Clinton, Bennett was among the president's most unrelenting detractors. His book, The Death of Outrage, decried, among other things, the public's failure to take Clinton's sins more seriously.



His relentless effort to push Americans to do good has enabled Bennett to do extremely well. His best-selling The Book of Virtues spawned an entire cottage industry, from children's books to merchandizing tie-ins to a PBS cartoon series. Bennett commands $50,000 per appearance on the lecture circuit and has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants from such conservative benefactors as the Scaife and John M. Olin foundations.

Few vices have escaped Bennett's withering scorn. He has opined on everything from drinking to "homosexual unions" to "The Ricki Lake Show" to wife-swapping. There is one, however, that has largely escaped Bennett's wrath: gambling. This is a notable omission, since on this issue morality and public policy are deeply intertwined. During Bennett's years as a public figure, casinos, once restricted to Nevada and New Jersey, have expanded to 28 states, and the number continues to grow. In Maryland, where Bennett lives, the newly elected Republican governor Robert Ehrlich is trying to introduce slot machines to fill revenue shortfalls. As gambling spreads, so do its associated problems. Heavy gambling, like drug use, can lead to divorce, domestic violence, child abuse, and bankruptcy. According to a 1998 study commissioned by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, residents within 50 miles of a casino are twice as likely to be classified as "problem" or "pathological" gamblers than those who live further away.

If Bennett hasn't spoken out more forcefully on an issue that would seem tailor-made for him, perhaps it's because he is himself a heavy gambler. Indeed, in recent weeks word has circulated among Washington conservatives that his wagering could be a real problem. They have reason for concern. The Washington Monthly and Newsweek have learned that over the last decade Bennett has made dozens of trips to casinos in Atlantic City and Las Vegas, where he is a "preferred customer" at several of them, and sources and documents provided to The Washington Monthly put his total losses at more than $8 million.


Bennett has been a high-roller since at least the early 1990s. A review of one 18-month stretch of gambling showed him visiting casinos, often for two or three days at a time (and enjoying a line of credit of at least $200,000 at several of them). Bennett likes to be discreet. "He'll usually call a host and let us know when he's coming," says one source. "We can limo him in. He prefers the high-limit room, where he's less likely to be seen and where he can play the $500-a-pull slots. He usually plays very late at night or early in the morning--usually between midnight and 6 a.m." The documents show that in one two-month period, Bennett wired more than $1.4 million to cover losses. His desire for privacy is evident in his customer profile at one casino, which lists as his residence the address for Empower.org (the Web site of Empower America, the non-profit group Bennett co-chairs). Typed across the form are the words: "NO CONTACT AT RES OR BIZ!!!"

Bennett's gambling has not totally escaped public notice. In 1998, The Washington Times reported in a light-hearted front-page feature story that he plays low-stakes poker with a group of prominent conservatives, including Robert Bork, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist. A year later, the same paper reported that Bennett had been spotted at the new Mirage Resorts Bellagio casino in Las Vegas, where he was reputed to have won a $200,000 jackpot. Bennett admitted to the Times that he had visited the casino, but denied winning $200,000. Documents show that, in fact, he won a $25,000 jackpot on that visit--but left the casino down $625,000.

Bennett--who gambled throughout Clinton's impeachment--has continued this pattern in subsequent years. On July 12 of last year, for instance, Bennett lost $340,000 at Caesar's Boardwalk Regency in Atlantic City. And just three weeks ago, on April 5 and 6, he lost more than $500,000 at the Bellagio in Las Vegas. "There's a term in the trade for this kind of gambler," says a casino source who has witnessed Bennett at the high-limit slots in the wee hours. "We call them losers."

Asked by Newsweek columnist and Washington Monthly contributing editor Jonathan Alter to comment on the reports, Bennett admitted that he gambles but not that he has ended up behind. Bennett claims he's beaten the odds: "Over 10 years, I'd say I've come out pretty close to even."

"You can roll up and down a lot in one day, as we have on many occasions," Bennett explains. "You may cycle several hundred thousand dollars in an evening and net out only a few thousand."

"I've made a lot of money [in book sales, speaking fees and other business ventures] and I've won a lot of money," adds Bennett.

But the documents show only a few occasions when he turns in chips worth $30,000 or $40,000 at the end of an evening. Most of the time, he draws down his line of credit, often substantially. A casino source, hearing of Bennett's claim to breaking even on slots over 10 years, just laughed.

"You don't see what I walk away with," Bennett says. "They [casinos] don't want you to see it."

Explaining his approach, Bennett says: "I've been a 'machine person' [slot machines and video poker]. When I go to the tables, people talk--and they want to talk about politics. I don't want that. I do this for three hours to relax." He says he was in Las Vegas in April for dinner with the former governor of Nevada and gambled while he was there.

Bennett says he has made no secret of his gambling. "I've gambled all my life and it's never been a moral issue with me. I liked church bingo when I was growing up. I've been a poker player."



But while Bennett's poker playing and occasional Vegas jaunt are known to some Washington conservatives, his high-stakes habit comes as a surprise to many friends. "We knew he went out there [to Las Vegas] sometimes, but at that level? Wow!" said one longtime associate of Bennett.

Despite his personal appetites, Bennett and his organization, Empower America, oppose the extension of casino gambling in the states. In a recent editorial, his Empower America co-chair Jack Kemp inveighed against lawmakers who "pollute our society with a slot machine on every corner." The group recently published an Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, with an introduction written by Bennett, that reports 5.5 million American adults as "problem" or "pathological" gamblers. Bennett says he is neither because his habit does not disrupt his family life.

When reminded of studies that link heavy gambling to divorce, bankruptcy, domestic abuse, and other family problems he has widely decried, Bennett compared the situation to alcohol.

"I view it as drinking," Bennett says. "If you can't handle it, don't do it."

Bennett is a wealthy man and may be able to handle losses of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Of course, as the nation's leading spokesman on virtue and personal responsibility, Bennett's gambling complicates his public role. Moreover, it has already exacted a cost. Like him or hate him, William Bennett is one of the few public figures with a proven ability to influence public policy by speaking out. By furtively indulging in a costly vice that destroys millions of lives and families across the nation, Bennett has profoundly undermined the credibility of his word on this moral issue.

Reporting assistance provided by Robert W. J. Fisk, Soyoung Ho, and Brent Kendall.

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

HYPOCRISY AT IT'S FINEST!

Oh, BTW Keith----I appreciate your positive comments about being "good men" and not "anti-american"---But, the part about being "misguided"??? According to WHO? Or what doctrine or manifestation of "right" or "wrong"? I do believe that Jesus himself was "considered" to be somewhat of a "liberal" by his Roman detractors during HIS time--was he not?? Here's what HE said about such men as Bennet!

St. Matthew, Chaper 6 Verse 1 through 5--

"Take heed that you do not your aims before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2-Therefore when thou doest thine aims, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, they have their reward.
3- But when thou doest aims, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
4- That thine aims be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
5- And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they pray standing in the synagogues and the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you. They have their reward.

Anyway, if ANYONES being "misguided" it's the folks that have been listening and attempting to "follow" the "guidence" of Bill Bennet!

[Keith_Hixson]

misguide?

Just pokin a little fun at you and James! :D

You noticed my smile.


Keith :D

[Gimpy]

Didn't mean to come on so strong.

[reconeil]

After all, it's only logical that Bennet like all other Private Sector pundits, commentators, journalists and notables (Public Sector oath-takers inclusive) having Conservative/Republican beliefs,...MUST BE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD than any and all Leftists worldwide. And, why not? Cons/Reps want only to starve children and old folks. Whereas Dems/Libs love everyone and patronize most everyone.

Also, why-the-hell would SO MANY like-minded French, Germans, Russians (plus about half of The UN) and even SO MANY Leftists in authority here despize having A Conservative America and/or a place where The American Constitution ONLY COVERS The American Citizenry EQUALLY (ie. NOT the preferential Dem/Lib variation wanted). Screw what Our Forefathers envisioned and once penned. What-the-hell did "They" know, anyway?

Besides, EVERYONE KNOWS that Our Constitution covers every living and breathing creature (even our enemies and those sneaking into MY/OUR country) on earth. Yeah sure,...and I'm The Right-Wing Tooth Fairy and don't know how to read.

Regardless, and given that so many American Leftists/Socialists and/or A Dem/Lib State ABOVE ALL ELSE types are in authority here, and are so likeminded as their multitude of foreign counterparts,...you must be RIGHT.

Still Gimpy, I must go along with The America and Americans Above All Else Crowd, since to me such means a better chance at longevity and National Survival. I just don't see such niceties in store for America and Americans led-by-the-nose by The Dems/Libs/Socialists,...or any other superior(?), all-knowing(?) and all-caring(?) types for that matter. If it sounds too good to be true,...IT'S JUST NEVER TRUE.

Though, and in fairness to me, and since never a truly good, obedient and unquestioningly faithful follower of The Catholic Religion, having only One God,...how-the-hell could I ever be faithful to any religion that changes their all knowing gods every 2, 4, or 6 years. Just not possible.

Neil :b:

[Gimpy]

Huh?

[SuperScout]

If a liberal intellectual (and some might consider this an oxymoron) were to play the stock market with a rather large sum of money than he had earned from various legal sources, and over the years still provided amply for his family, but ended up losing $10 million, would this same condemnation apply to him as it does to William Bennett? If his hobby was making risky investments, hoping for the home run of pay-offs, would anybody care?

In those places where Bennet practiced his hobby, is gambling illegal? Did he commit any crime? And one of you Biblical scholars show me where gambling is considered a sin by my Lord. All this condemnation of Bennett is simply liberal whining, trying to demonize someone because they have nothing positive to bring to the table, nothing contructive, just bitching, complaining, and negativity.

[blues clues]

that's like the pot calling the kettle black,HE'S the one who put himself on a higher plain then the rest of us.
razz

P.S give you 2 to 5 he wishs this had't come out.

[reconeil]

Re: "On a higher plain than the rest of us", that's exactly how Mr. and Senator Clinton, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and such types perpetually act(both ways),...and no one gets-on-their-case when "They" fall or stumble. Hell "Fall or stumble",...since with Dems/Libs (some even oath-takers) it's usually no-big-deal even when "They" are caught fat-out-lying or illegally receiving large sums of monies.

Whereas, if a Conservativative/Republican Street Sweeper or Dog Catcher are caught doing similar,...such must be nailed-to-the-cross. Such is what Dems/Libs consider to be: TRUE bipartisanship.

Neil :b:

[judyvillecco]

Refreshing debate Gimpy. You are a fireball! I'm with you Keith! The old liberals are great! The new ones scare me a little but both sides have merit. It's great to read this debate with some on ignore! What's wrong with a $2.00 bet? I bet on horses once and the lotto one time. Guess I'm a hypocrite. Still like Bennett but not Limbaugh or Hannity. My problem with Hannity is he won't fight himself for our country as stated on his show but doesn't mind sending others. Got no respect for that. As for O'Reilly, I love to hate him and watch him every night. :D As for the Gimp I'm a fan!

[SuperScout]

Did Bennett at any time condemn gambling, or those who participate in this hobby? Are you equating a gambler with a dope-smoking, draft dodging, woman-abusing loather of the military? When did Bennett put himself on a higher plain than anybody? You make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[blues clues]

Neil,you are right about the Jackson,sharpton's and who every but neil just how long will it take the rep/conserv/right wing nut's to get over the eight years of Clinton? everytime any kind of talk starts about the conservativative/republican all you have to do is look to the right and here it comes some-old- dog and pony show I do wish you guy's would get a new act this one is wearing kind of thin.
razz

[Gimpy]

Even though I'm ABSOLUTELY no "fan" of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et all.

These is NO WAY (Neil) that you (or SuperScreamer) can sit there and try to convince ME or anyone else that when Jesse Jackson's little "extra-martial affair" became "public knowledge" in the media just a few years ago that YOU (both) weren't "bitchin, moaning, and hollering"from the "highest rooftops of moral-superiority" that HE was a "hypocrite" of the worst kind. Same, same with Bill Clinton as well.

"Morality", virtuous behavior, values of honest and forthright resonsible behavior and "setting the necessary, permissble conduct" of society was the FOUNDATION of W. Bennet's publications and the "sermon's" narrative of those "$50,000" speeches he accetped so "graciously" as payment "rendered" for his "brand" of "conservatisim" and "moral" superiority"!

Ain't it funny how you guys can be so "blind" when the proverbial "shoe" is "on the other foot", huh??

Typical "right-wing" behavior, as always, DENY--DECEIVE---DISAVOW any and all evidence contrary to the "pary's perception" of so-called "moral majority"---Yea, well that's just about as full of $hit as Bennets "excuse" for his behavior!

Adios & Ta-Ta,

[Gimpy]

Here is WHY Bennet should be considered a "hypocrite" and condemned for his actions!

**********************************
Berate and Switch
Bill Bennett's kinder, gentler defenders.
By William Saletan
Updated Tuesday, May 6, 2003, at 2:38 PM PT


Here come the Bill Bennett defenders. In case you've been sitting in front of a video poker screen for the past week, here's the story: The Washington Monthly's Joshua Green and Newsweek's Jonathan Alter reported that Bennett, a conservative moral lecturer and author of The Book of Virtues, has gambled at casinos for years, losing as much as $8 million. Slate's Michael Kinsley and other liberals jumped on the story, spanking Bennett for hypocrisy.

Now conservative pundits are coming to Bennett's aid. They argue, as Kinsley predicted, that Bennett's gambling is 1) OK because it hurts nobody else directly and 2) non-hypocritical because Bennett never explicitly criticized gambling. Either point can be argued separately. But together they don't stand up. Bennett's hypocrisy isn't that he gambled while faulting others for the same habit. It's that he says it's OK for him to indulge in a habit that hurts nobody else directly, but it isn't OK for you. To excuse his conduct, his libertarian defenders are substituting their standards for his.


Bennett told the Monthly: "I don't play the 'milk money.' I don't put my family at risk, and I don't owe anyone anything." He compared gambling to alcohol: "If you can't handle it, don't do it." His defenders make the same point. "Bennett deserves privacy; he deserves whatever means he can legally use to relax when he is off duty," writes Andrew Sullivan. "What he does with his money is his own business," agrees Jim Glassman. "The only conceivable victims here are the Bennett family, and a little bird tells me that they'll do just fine," says National Review's Jonah Goldberg. Unlike adultery, gambling doesn't involve a "willingness to hurt others," adds the Weekly Standard's Jonathan Last.

Sullivan, Glassman, Goldberg, and Last are fully entitled to make this argument. But Bennett isn't. As drug czar in 1989 and 1990, he constantly emphasized that anyone who patronized that addictive industry was responsible for its victims. On Meet the Press, he advocated mandatory sentences for "recreational, yuppie" marijuana users, blaming them for "the murder and mayhem in Washington, the fact that we have babies now being born addicted to cocaine. ? These people are accessories to all those things, and they need to start paying a price." He told the Wall Street Journal that the "casual user ? is driving the whole enterprise." He told USA Today, "For your middle class or your yuppie user, let's do what they do in Phoenix: Weekend in jail, counseling program, and you pay the cost of it." He criticized celebrities who admitted to past drug use, warning that such disclosures gave kids the idea that "you can do drugs and still be rich and successful."

You can argue (contrary to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission) that gambling doesn't trap and destroy people the way drugs do. But again, Bennett can't. The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators 2001, to which Bennett wrote the introduction, says, "Approximately 2.5 million adult Americans are pathological gamblers; another 3 million have been classified as problem gamblers. ? According to the American Psychiatric Association, 'pathological gambling is persistent and recurrent maladaptive gambling behavior ? that disrupts personal, family, or vocational pursuits.' "

To quell the furor, Bennett has issued a Clintonian non-apology apology: "It is true that I have gambled large sums of money. I have also complied with all laws on reporting wins and losses. Nevertheless, I have done too much gambling, and this is not an example I wish to set. Therefore, my gambling days are over." It isn't about the example, Bill. It's about you doing for gambling what you said pot smokers did for the drug trade. If you'd caught any of your libertarian sympathizers with a joint, they'd have spent the weekend in jail for patronizing a corrosive industry. Lucky for you, they're more forgiving.

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

[judyvillecco]

Gimpy you are right!
Bennett deserves the attention for his hypocrisy just like Clinton I agree. He deserves to be all over the media too. What's right is right on both sides. He has no right pulling the moat out of others eyes and whatever in his own so to speak. Many people with money think that gives them the right though. If they have money and power or money or power.

Then those of us without it complain loudly about those who have it. I do anyway. :D

[HARDCORE]

Recon Old Friend -

Your analogy is not totally accurate! In that you say, if I read you right - "When a Republican f--ks-up, everybody is on his case, where-as when a Demo bites ass, no one responds!?"

I (and many others my friend)make it a point to strike in both direction, not for political motive, but for Americanism! A man has to be open-minded, do you not agree, on all issues. Willing to praise where praise is due, and to rebut that which he feels in error, regardless of the author of the feast or famine!

As no one, party, or faction of any kind, is always right or always wrong, the only true axiom, in my humble opinion, is Americanism! And right or wrong, this is our one true (original) handle!

When something is wrong, it is our duty to attempt to fix it! When it is (what we perceive to be) right, then it our responsibility to compliment it also! "OUR TOTAL COUNTRY" should and must be our primary concern, for unless we find a means to pull together, we will most assuredly all pull apart! (Just my usual insanity)

KEEP PUNCHING MY FRIEND!!

VERITAS

[11BRAVO]

When one becomes the "self-appointed-moral-pontificator", one should have a closet free of skeletons.....Granted, spending $ 2 million dollars++ ( money derived from his sermonizing-moralizing books and given to casinos who feed on addictive behavior ... ) gambling was legal ( and what happened to privacy here ?? ) etc., but what if he had only gambled 1/10 of the total and given the rest to some worthwhile charities, as he is constantly reminding us, vis-a-vis his books, that we should be doing...I would like to see him contribute time and money to organizations which help gamblers kick the habit, and have something positive come out of all of this, instead of the usual "hot-political-air" from both sides....

11BRAVO

[judyvillecco]

Bravo to both. Well said and Amen

[Gimpy]

Bill (please don't call me a hypocrite) Bennet!

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

NATION/WORLD > Ruth


Bill Bennett Rolls Snake Eyes On His Reputation
DANIEL RUTH
Published: May 11, 2003

Why, there hasn't been this much clucking since they held auditions for ``Chicken Run.''
After all, this country's national pastime isn't baseball. It's the always delightful blood sport of reveling in the fall from grace of hypocritical public figures hoisted on their own petards of hubris.

Jimmy Swaggart? Oh, baby, baby!

Jim Bakker? A mother lode of lechery!

Jesse Jackson? A shrine of shamelessness!

Bill Clinton? The hall of fame of debauchery!

And, of course, there are the lesser lights, from Marion Barry to Robert Downey Jr.

So imagine the glee, the delight, the unabashed joy at the news that former drug czar and self-coronated arbiter of righteousness William Bennett had accumulated $8 million in high-stakes gambling losses over the past decade.

You know, when word got out that professional golfer John Daley spent more time at the craps tables than on the driving range, nobody really took much notice or cared.

Good grief, Daley is a walking multiple-choice 12-step program.

But Bennett has made his name, his reputation - indeed, his fortune - as a professional scolder, roaming the land tsk-tsking away in moral judgment of public figures and popular culture.

It would be one thing if Bennett's expertise had been pontificating on professional wrestling, as one phony to another. Who then would pay the slightest heed to the schlemiel hunched over a video game losing enough money to cover the Vatican's candle budget?

However, when you're best known as the author of ``The Book of Virtues,'' it's best not to be on a first- name basis with every croupier from Atlantic City to Las Vegas.

It didn't take long for Bennett's detractors to start dancing around the Maypole of Payback, accusing the vicar general of rank hypocrisy.
Maybe so. Maybe Bennett, who probably has written more IOUs than Argentina's finance minister, is nothing more than another modern- day Elmer Gantry of double standards.

Still, it would seem a more nagging question overwhelms this story.


Another Hobby?

It's not the act of gambling, per se, that's the humiliation here. Let us not forget he did nothing illegal.

But there is only one real way to lose $8 million by gambling: You have to be really, really, really bad at it.

And therein can be found Bennett's biggest public relations dilemma.

In order to pull off the con that he is some credible, high-minded Torquemada in pinstripes, Bennett has to convince the rubes who believe in him that he also is a very smart guy.

Oooopsie!

Even giving every conceivable benefit of the doubt, one would think that if one lost, say, $1 million playing slot machines, one might conclude: ``Holy #@!&%! This is insane! Maybe I ought to find another hobby.''

There's a reason slot machines are known as one-armed bandits.

But noooooooooo! It took the Bishop Sheen of the strip $8 MILLION (!!!!) to conclude that the odds of his luck changing were about the same as Al Sharpton winning the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

How unspeakably dense does one have to be not to figure that out sooner?


Phony To Phony

At the same time, it also apparently never dawned on Bennett that sitting around casinos at all hours of the day, losing at times hundreds of thousands of dollars largely earned from books and speeches claiming to have the corner on correctness, was hardly the sort of behavior expected from a one- man, holier-than-thou star chamber.

How clueless. What parallel universe of arrogance must he be living in not to understand that?

Finally, didn't he ever think that some might say $8 million flushed down the toilets of casinos might have been better spent by a man in full of himself underwriting some charitable endeavor?

So, Mr. Bennett, the Billy Graham of baccarat, what's the title of your next tome?

``The Book of Vigorish''?

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

Now let's hear from the "peanut gallery conservative commentators" and how THEY like having THEIR "poster boy" of PC&V V (political correctness, Virtue & Values) finally EXPOSED for his arrogance & disgusting, failure of "character"!!

PS--Thanks Judy, Razz & 11BRAVO for your comments and participation in the discussion. Also, Neil & SuperSleuth---keep the "excuses" coming, PLEASE---they are becoming a plethora of comical perusements--HAR--DE-HAR-HAR!!!

[judyvillecco]

You are welcome Gimpy! Sounds like our Mr. Bennett has the attitude of Marie Antionette.... I've come to the same conclusion with the Bush brothers! Let them eat cake! Har-de-Har! :D (I'll pay for that one! Did I say that?)

[SuperScout]

Beware of the bait and switch game that is being played. First, the liberals start trying to dispel the truth about how biased the press is, tossing out the tainted opinions of a fellow traveler. Then, when the discussions turns against them, they switch to another subject when they realized they have been upstaged, outgunned, and outsmarted, are rather simple task, all things considered. So the big switch is attempted by baiting the conversation matter with another topic. In fact, one of them has gotten so good at this tactic, that he has progressed from the ranks of mere apprentice baiter to that of.........


Master Baiter.

[blues clues]

Well if we do switch to another subject that's ok, at least we can find other subjects to talk about! All I know is if you live in a glass house don't throw rock's because someone might throw them back at you.
razz

[Gimpy]

Somethings REALLY start to "stink" around here, ya know? Could it be that SuperStinker (and his "other intellectual" pals" are having difficulty admitting their "poster boy" of right-wing rhetoric is a hypocrite?? Naw--SURELY not!

And, correct me if I'm wrong---but wasn't one of Bennets foremost "activities"to go on "media" talk shows and newsgroups organizations functions and "preach" his (and the Kornsurvatives) brand of "morality" to the public at large??

Now if THAT is NOT media "bias"---just what in the hell is it???
Especially when Rush, Sean, George, etc, etc, etc,. are "promoting" and defending this jerk.

Want more on "media bias"--check THIS out.

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

Alterman's book is a touchstone of truth amidst the dross of mad rants by manic GOP "pundit celebrities." Alterman, for instance, documents how the Wall Street Journal "editors are so deeply committed to the far-right propaganda they espouse, they frequently contradict the reporting in their own newspaper." Armed with 40 pages of footnotes, Alterman vanquishes any notion of a liberal press. What we are left with is a media that serves as a propaganda news outlet for the right wing of the Republican party. The modern D.C. journalist, for the most part, is really a public relations writer for the White House. Even if you've known how "in the tank" the media is with the Republican Party, this book will get you even angrier. When you finish, make a commitment to voice your objections to the media as often as you can.

More about "What Liberal Media?" | back to top

The question of whose interests the media protects -- and how -- has achieved holy-grail-like significance. Is media bias keeping us from getting the whole story? If so, who is at fault? Is it the liberals who are purported to be running the newsrooms, television and radio stations of this country, duping an unsuspecting public into mistaking their party line for news? Or is it the conservatives who have identified media bias as a reliably inflammatory rallying cry around which to consolidate their political base as they cynically "work the refs?" The media has become so pervasive in our lives that regardless of exactly where on the ideological fence you sit, the question of media bias has become all but unavoidable.

Most of the criticism (and anger) has so far emanated from the political Right, which has offered us the rather unconvincing argument that a systematic Left bias is destroying the quality of news and debate in our country today. Journalist and historian Eric Alterman begs to differ.

What Liberal Media? confronts the question of liberal bias and, in so doing, provides a sharp and utterly convincing assessment of the realities of political bias in the news. In distinct contrast to the conclusions reached by Ann Coulter, Bernard Goldberg, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly, Alterman finds the media to be, on the whole, far more conservative than liberal, though it is possible to find evidence for both views. The fact that conservatives howl so much louder and more effectively than liberals is one significant reason that big media is always on its guard for "liberal" bias but gives conservative bias a free pass.

After reading What Liberal Media? you will understand that the real news story of recent years is not whether this newspaper, or that news anchor, is biased but rather to what extent the entire news industry is organized to communicate conservative views and push our politics to the right-regardless of how "liberal" any given reporter may be.

What People Are Saying about "What Liberal Media?" | back to top

"The myth of the liberal media is an idea that is gaining currency; this is a strong opening salvo in that much-needed discussion."
-- Ilene Cooper, Booklist, American Library Association

"The incredulity begins with the title What Liberal Media?, journalist Eric Alterman's refutation of widely flung charges of left-wing bias, and never lets up. The book is unlikely to make many friends among conservative media talking heads. Alterman picks apart charges made by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Sean Hannity, and others (even the subtitle refers to a popular book by former CBS producer Bernard Goldberg that argues a lefty slant in news coverage). But the perspectives of less-incendiary figures, including David Broder and Howard Kurtz, are also dissected in Alterman's quest to prove that not only do the media lack a liberal slant but that quite the opposite is true. . . . For liberals hoping someone will take off the gloves and mix it up with the verbal brawlers of the right, Eric Alterman is a champion."
-- John Moe for Amazon.com.

"Alterman . . . seeks to debunk the notion [of a liberal bias in media] and goes so far as to argue that bastions of alleged liberalism like the Washington Post and ABC News 'have grown increasingly cowed by false complaints of liberal bias and hence, progressively more sympathetic to the most outlandish conservative complaints.' He largely succeeds: whatever your politics, Alterman delivers well-documented, well-argued research in compulsively readable form."
-- Publisher's Weekly

About the Author of "What Liberal Media?" | back to top

Eric Alterman currently writes the "Stop the Presses" media column for The Nation and the "Altercation" web log for MSNBC.com. In recent years, he has been a contributing editor to, or columnist for Worth, Rolling Stone, Elle, Mother Jones, World Policy Journal, and The Sunday Express (London). His Sound and Fury: The Making of the Punditocracy (1992/2000), won the 1992 George Orwell Award and his It Ain't No Sin To Be Glad You're Alive: The Promise of Bruce Springsteen (1999), won the 1999 Stephen Crane Literary Award. He is also the author of Who Speaks for America? Why Democracy Matters in Foreign Policy (1998), and When Presidents Lie: Deception and Its Consequences, which is forthcoming. A senior fellow of the World Policy Institute at New School University, and an affiliated faculty member in the magazine journalism program at New York University, Alterman received his B.A. in History and Government from Cornell, his M.A. in International Relations from Yale, and his Ph.D. in U.S. History from Stanford. He was born in Queens, New York and lives with his family in Manhattan.

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

[Gimpy]

"Upstaged"?? maybe.---"Outgunned"?? Possibly---"Outsmarted"--not in YOUR lifetime--NOWAY JOSE". It Ain't gonna happen!

Have a nice day!

[judyvillecco]

I know when I watch that dog and pony show Hannity and his lap dog they call a democrat I know Fox is Biased. You have to watch other channels to get a change but they all say the same thing. And MSNBC is running a close second by putting our former congressman media hound Scarborough show on. Where is the old reporting we used to see when Kennedy was alive. Now we are told to shut up or we are not real patriots. Please! Keep the heat Gimpy. Ann Coulter is about as extreme as they get! What happened to open minds? Now we hear shut up if you can't support our president blah blah. And if Bennett is a liar tell the truth. What happened to us asking hard questions? If the mind police want to censor us it won't happen. Not as long as some of us are alive. :re:

[reconeil]

Not to worry. I've never even been taken-in by THE REAL PROS and/or word-manipulating/twisting Liberals on TV over the years. Hell, I recognized that "They" were 2 flat-out-lying-phonies (re. The Clintons) on TV, about a year before: "Old Slick" was even elected.

So, and in that context and even though amateurs also like to drone on and on religiously regarding The French/German/Russian/UN/Liberal Party Line, I'll stick to my guns. After all, and if just for National Survival alone, I figure that America and Americans will fair much better with Right-Wing Conservatism, than with Left-Wing Leftists in total control, any day of the week.

Besides, Conservatism is infinitely more believable, sensible, logical and pragmatic also. Plus, being on the paying end most of my life, the: "Pragmatic" part impresses me most. So, and to Dems/Libs/Socialists forever wanting more and more and more of MY/OUR money,...I say screw you ONE & ALL my friends, and I guess: "We'll just have to agree to disagree".

Neil :b:

P.S. SuperS
I loved the way you promoted an: "Apprentice baiter".
Does such a promotion have stripes or bars?

[blues clues]

Gimpy, I always know when you get to the right wing-nuts the only thing they can do is run down Clinton after all he was elected two time where as bush hasn't been elected once yet (slected maybe) but not elected.
razz

[reconeil]

This blasphemous of Lordly-Leftists and/or "Right wing nut" started running-down The Phony Clintons long before: "His Slickness" and cohorts were ever elected. Plus, the antics of Clinton and associates themselves did more to: "Run-down" the Dems/Libs, than I could ever do in a million years.

Though, and in fairness, Old Bill must have really cracked-the-books during his retirement. "He" now seems to be coming-on like a foreign affairs expert. Wow! STILL, and especially since his unarguable fiasco in Somalia,...I don't see why the fool STILL favors The UN handling things in Iraq? Maybe The Draft Dodger STILL despizes The U.S. Military? It surely seems so.

Regardless, and since not "Connected", such gives me-the-edge and the luxury of being honest and speaking of realities instead. I don't have to perpetually bluster The Dem/Lib/Socialist Party Line, such as is robotically dictated doing so by staunch and obedient followers like Gimpy and Razz.

Also, and besides being A Free American,...I've also grown-up.

Neil

[SuperScout]

Oh the sheer joy of seeing the bastion of liberal bias, diversity/stupidity and affirmative action, the infamous New York Times, get bit in their self-righteous arse by reality. Their former two-bit liar of a reporter, who was hired and retained only because of diversity, a cause sponsored, endorsed and promulgated by the NYT, is a perfect example of biased press, bad management (or actually, the lack thereof), and liberal ideas. But the sad fact, other than the lack of integrity on the part of the reporter, is the even more shocking lack of accountability on the part of management, who, knowing of the reporter's lies and misfeasance, refused to fire him (gasp! do you possibly think that becasue he was Black, they couldn't fire him?) and let him continue his fraud.

Gee whiz, and by golly: reading all those impressive credentials of Alterman, and his list of alma maters: do you really suspect that he might be a liberal, just for starters, so would that possibly taint or corrupt his tome about liberalism in the press? Naah, not a chance.....

And you, over there in the left corner, picking more stones to throw, can you point with something other than your ever-increasing lengthy noses, where it is written that gambling is a sin? Study as I might, I can't seem to find anything about the subject in the Gospels, but then maybe one of you upstanding Biblical scholars can point me in the right direction.

[blues clues]

SS if you reread what I've wrote no where did I say anything about sin but while we are on the subject, the Gospels do say that anything you do in excess such as gambling,drinking,or even sex is a sin. or that's the way I read the gospel.
razz

[SuperScout]

Kindly cite the Book, Chapter and Verse that talks of moderation, the antithesis of excess; I can't seem to find it in my Bible. And BTW, if moderation is the pro forma of good behavior, by whose standards are we defining as moderation? I may not consider seeking $8 million in credit, as did Bennett, as moderation personified, but he might. What it all appears to boil down to is this: you liberals don't like Bill Bennett because he has skewered many of your sacred cows, has pointed out the failures of liberal ideas, and did what he wanted to do without harming anyone else. And the fact that he is uniquely eloquent just drives you to demonize him all the more. Ta-Ta

[SuperScout]

Now that the New York Times has had their managerial and editorial face covered with egg with the Jayson Blair scandal, along comes the Los Angeles Times with their version of "who can tell the biggest lie." It seems that one of its prime reporters, Robert Scheer, has done a cut and paste story out of the BBC, stating that the rescue of Jessica Lynch was all a staged affair. The scumbag of a reporter never bothered to check any facts, never bothered to verify the BBC report, but wrote his scurrilous attack on our military, and by implication, the Commander in Chief, whom he obviously despises. Imagine, if you can, the vast conspiracy of silence that must exist in his warped mind, involving the Marine diversionary attack force, the Navy Seal security forces, the Ranger rescue team, and the Air Force crew that transported the entire mission. Check out this moron's pre-war diatribes. Now, let's see the Los Angeles Times discipline him, or better yet, print any type of apology. And all you liberals or leberals out there, come out of your closets, and start defending this fool of a so-called reporter, and the liberal excuse for a newspaper he represents.

And here's more:

"Students at a college graduation ceremony booed a New York Times reporter off the stage after he compared the United States' policy in Iraq to piranhas and a tyranny over the weak.

Chris Hedges was only three minutes into his 18-minute presentation when his microphone was unplugged Saturday at Rockford College in Rockford, Ill., the Rockford Register Star reported.

During the speech, some graduates and audience members protested silently by turning their backs to the stage, while others rushed up the aisle to shout at the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter. One student tossed his cap and gown toward the speaker.

Jeers, foghorns and calls of "God Bless America" also could be heard.

By that time, graduate Mary O'Neill, who sat next to Pribbenow, already had left the ceremony in tears after she asked the president why he allowed the speech to continue.

"This is a ceremony," he told the Rockford daily. "... The day belongs to the students. It doesn't belong to a political view."

The Times' war correspondent said in his speech war breeds a fervor for heroism that sacrifices individual thought for temporarily belonging to a larger cause, according to the Register Star.

He expressed sympathy for American soldiers, characterizing them as boys from poor southern backgrounds who joined the military because they had no other options.

"War in the end is always about betrayal," he said, according to the Rockford paper. "Betrayal of the young by the old, of soldiers by politicians and idealists by cynics."

[blues clues]

Superscout,lets see if the press says something good about the conv/reb. they are right and finely telling the truth if they says something about the dems/leberals they are the bad old leberal press I do wish you would make up your mind which it is,I saw the story you were talking about and I though it was bullsh!t.I have never run down our fighting men or woman and never well and anyone who dose is full of it. and as far as being a closet leberal that" SIR "I am not,what you see is what you get.
razz

[judyvillecco]

Couldn't have said it better myself! "War does breed a fervor for heroism...and in the end is always about betrayal,"..."of the young by the old, of soldiers by politicians and idealist by cynics." Anyone who believes this war was about weapons of mass destruction please stand up. Anyone who knows it was about making sure we got oil contracts..oh and by the way did some good deeds along the way say amen. Can never convince me otherwise. Where is the smoking gun. So Sadam had to go...don't let another Sadam back in. Funny how our gas prices rose and fell with the oil and how the Bush's are all tied into that. please let this liberal stand! :D Now can we get back to what's wrong with American economy, health care and who is suffering here or do we keep giving the farm away singing "we are the world?"

[SuperScout]

There's a $20 bill in my pocket that you will never see a criticism of the Los Angeles Times story about the faux raid, as they call it. The liberal press, and this is the topic de jure, is more protective of itself than a bunch of crooked lawyers (is that being redundant?). The liberal press, like the New York Times, has allowed itself to become the laughing stock of journalism because of a fatally flawed policy and management style. Their west coast mirror image, the Los Angeles Times, is similarly foolish, to put it mildly, for printing the inane drivel of Robert Scheer. There will not an apology from the Left Coast Times, trust me.

And will the person with evidence of new oil contracts between the US and Iraq please come forward? Or aren't you smart enough to come up with something more original than 'blood for oil', the most banal tripe trotted out yet. You types wouldn't believe WMD existed even if a ton of anthrax was dropped on your head, which may not be such a bad idea!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MORTARDUDE]

Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far better that you fear the media, for they will steal your HONOR. That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse. -

-Mark Twain


AMEN !!!

[Lady Creffield]

The story about "all the priceless artifacts stolen from the Iraqi museums" seems to have died down as well, now that it's been revealed that most feared lost were found either in the museums or with the curators for safe-keeping.

Gimpy, you sound like a nice guy, albeit misled. But here's the terrifying thing: I'm still a child myself--don't even have my driver's permit--and it's plain that you're behaving like a little kid. "SuperSmelly" ? "SuperStinker" ? "Kornsurvatives"?

They sound like words from the mouth of my 9 year old brother.

Judyvillecco: You whine and moan about us "kornsurvatives" people telling others to "shut up," (which is our constitutional prerogative, by the way) but you've conveniently ignored (by your own admittance) half the posters on the thread. Explain that away, ma'am. Who's caught in the web of hypocrisy now?

""War in the end is always about betrayal," he said, according to the Rockford paper. "Betrayal of the young by the old, of soldiers by politicians and idealists by cynics."

I've got something to say about that quote...(don't I always?)

"Betrayal of the young by the old" is less dramatically phrased by something that most liberals seem to have missed---growing up. Nor does it take war to do so. In the face of reality, idealistic children are often betrayed by life itself, not by the conspiratorial machinations of "cynics." (People that I prefer to call "realists.") As for the betrayal of soldiers by politicians, you don't do our soldiers justice. What they go through in the heat of war is terrible, but as soldiers they've chosen to risk that, through love of their country and the people they leave behind. Soldiers (exception being Steven Funk) do not expect to be pampered when they enlist. It is not betrayal, it is the realization of a grim but prepared for task that they have volunteered to do.

[blues clues]

SS, seeing how I don't live in LA and do not read the LA or the New York times I can not anwser your question. But as far as WMD, If they found three can's of raid taped together these people would be happy.
As far as looting I will not even talk about the crowd of criminals looting their country nothing to say shoot them, but the only people who will get rich is the rupublians or at least their friends (ie)halliburtion...
razz

[judyvillecco]

LADY CREFFIELD,
thank you for addressing me and I'll try not to "whine and moan" too loudly about you "kornsurvatives" people "telling others to "shut up" being its their constitutional perogative and all. I know I get told to shut up a lot. I do not ignore half the posters on this thread... just a couple, as they argue black is white and I admit it...it's my constitutional perogative, as is my "whining and moaning." I like conservatives as a group and consider myself a moderate on most issues and conservative myself on some issues, liberal on others. I try to keep an open mind, unlike some people I know. Not you maam.

When I talk about the betrayal of soldiers by politicians I do not in any way denigrate soldiers as I was one myself. I think we go in idealistic believing in God and country and that we will defend her til death and all. But, when we get out and older, especially those of us who were around for Vietnam, know our government betrayed us with their crazy politics and we are gun shy to see it happen again. Too many men lost their lives needlessly in Vietnam. Too many of us suffered to break down barriers for others, myself included. I earned the right to complain and challenge this or any other president who sends my sons or grandsons to war.

I did not then, nor do I fear now going to war for a just cause as my father did in World War II. But even that war had it's political side. How well I remember my father and grandfather talk about that. How the people were rationed and oil was dumped to keep prices up and shortages and rations. He witnessed a lot of things even then that took the idealism from his heart. War is hell let us not take it lightly or enter into it lightly and don't think the people who come back are fine and we can just set some of them loose on society. :( Well I moan and whine on......peace to all.

[blues clues]

Judy speaks highly for all thanks.
razz

[MORTARDUDE]

Welcome to the fray !! According to your post your age seems to be about 15 ? If so, you are wise beyond your years and your input is welcome. Where do you live ? Take care.

Larry

[HARDCORE]

Lady Creffield does indeed sound knowledgeable of political affairs beyond her years, however, she may indeed be quite young as was mentioned in a previous post? As such, if she does relate where she lives on this site, I would hope that she would limit her response to just her State of residence alone, and no more!

"I am sure that you will all agree!"

[Arrow]

HC,

I appreciate you looking out for the young lady. And I agree. I would go as far as saying that even her home state is too much information. It is possible she is as young as she has stated. I was reading Voltaire at her age. To her credit she is articulate and has already stated she is aware of how insecure all of our information is on the world wide web.

I look forward to reading her post. She certainly knows her own mind and is not easily intimated. I like her spunk.

[judyvillecco]

THANKS BLUES...AS FOR THE LADY BEING 15 BEFORE EVERYONE GETS SO EXCITED I DON'T BELIEVE IT FOR ONE MINUTE SO DON'T JUMP ON THE BANDWAGON OF PROTECTING HER FROM US BAD LIBERALS. THE LADY IS ON HERE AND CAN TAKE THE HEAT BEFORE ALL YOU CORNSERVATIVES GET TOO AWED AND SING CUM BAH YA! :D (bLUES MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE TOLD OUR AGE AS 15!)bE THAT AS IT MAY WHEN I WAS 15 I WON THE HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE CLASS FOR KENNEDY AGAINST NIXON IN "kORNSERVATIVE" KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE. THOSE "KORNSERVATIVES" SWORE THEN HE WAS GONNA MAKE CATHOLICS OUT OF ALL OF US IF HE WON. I AGREE THOUGH IF SHE'S 15 DON'T TELL THIS BUNCH ANYTHING!

[MORTARDUDE]

no need to "yell" about it....
my post indicating her age was a ploy for posers.....


Larry

[judyvillecco]

GOSH LARRY! AM I YELLING, WHINING, OR MOANING? WISH YOU PEOPLE WOULD MAKE UP YOUR MIND WHAT YOU WANT TO ACCUSE ME OF. GOSH! THOUGHT I WAS DEBATING LIKE THE REST OF YOU. WHY IS IT WHEN I DO IT I GET CALLED NAMES? WHAT HYPOCRITES ....BUT THERE I GO YELLING AND WHINING..... AND NOW I'VE SUNK TO A NEW LEVEL OF NAMECALLING TOO. OOPS! GARSH :D

[MORTARDUDE]

when a post is in all CAPS it usually denotes yelling and/or screaming...that is all I meant by it..SORRY !!!!


Larry

[judyvillecco]

oH see what I know about computer etiquette. I still have windows 95! I'll keep that in mind and quit yelling. :a: Sorry :re:

[HARDCORE]

Guys, you know the old saying- BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY!

OOPS, I guess that I yelled too. Hell, I like a person with a good, loud voice, a barrel full of opinions, and the guts to let them rip!

God, "I LOVE THIS SITE!!"

[judyvillecco]

Me too!

[Lady Creffield]

Judy;

You seem to think I'm using my age to self-aggrandize or validate anything I've said on this forum. On the contrary; I've now exposed myself to disbelief and condescension, so there is no need for you to get hostile or defensive. I'd prefer that I hadn't let that slip: now I can expect "Well, you're obviously too young to understand" as a counter to every argument.

I hail from the West coast, let's leave it at that.

"bE THAT AS IT MAY WHEN I WAS 15 I WON THE HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE CLASS FOR KENNEDY AGAINST NIXON IN "kORNSERVATIVE" KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE. THOSE "KORNSERVATIVES" SWORE THEN HE WAS GONNA MAKE CATHOLICS OUT OF ALL OF US IF HE WON."

Congratulations, both for your achievements and for revealing your own insecurity. Why did you feel it necessary to even bring that up? Nobody questioned your intelligence---not in this context, anyway.

"YELLING, WHINING, OR MOANING"

It's possible to do all three. Have you had the misfortune to stumble upon an irate toddler lately? ;)

A final question, and I'll stop this petty harping: What, exactly, is the significance of "Korn"-servative? What does Korn have to do with Conservatism? If you are referring to the band, I am not very familiar with it, and if you mean the food---I am still clueless.

Have a nice day.

[blues clues]

that's alright Lady, every conserv. I'vbe every meet is clueless too.liberaly yours.
razz

[judyvillecco]

You're right honey and cute and I did meet a toddler today. keep searching for those witty comments. Maybe you can use them on someone besides me. Shoo fly go way :p ;)

[SuperScout]

Perhaps some gentle advice is in order, from one who has been around the world three times, to two county fairs, and a goat ropin' or three. There is a certain lady... make that woman, on this site who tends to dwell in several bodies, or rather several minds tend to reside momentarily in one person. It is best to refer to her in the third person, as any personal responses usually evoke anger, shouting, disconnected changes of subject, or other distraction from normal discourse. And normal discourse, at least amongst intelligent gentlepersons, will eschew such childish name-callings as you pointed out, will attempt to employ such technological wonders as SpellCheck, and will respond to questions in a logical manner.

And have you noticed that magnificient paucity of praise and support from so called liberals for their paragons of journalistic integrity, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times? The liberal media is just that, in addition to being the poster children for hypocrisy.

[MORTARDUDE]

this is getting interesting....

[Lady Creffield]

"You're right honey"

I already knew that, Ma'am. God bless.

"that's alright Lady, every conserv. I'vbe every meet is clueless too.liberaly yours. "

I set myself up for that one. I didn't expect an answer though, honestly. :re:

SuperScout: Thank you for the advice. With that knowledge---and previous experience babysitting 2nd graders---I should be able to deal with the occasional irrational outburst. :) It's a pity, though, that people continue to drag themselves outside the realm of logical discussion. Liberal or conservative, it's this kind of political bigotry that's sparked a civil war of sorts in every media outlet conceivable.

I'm willing to have an intelligent conversation with either of you...but all that I can make of your garbled, misspelled ad hominem is that you lack the capacity to do so.

[blues clues]

It's funny that when dealing with a conservative, they aways think everyone who dosen't think the way they do are as dumb as a box of rocks. now I know I'm not the brightest light in the box,but at least I do look at both sides with an open mind.
razz

[SuperScout]

And how can you know that a Conservative doesn't look at both sides with an open mind? I have studied liberalism for over 40 years, found it wanting, found it usually a total failure, and found it still the domain of delusional fanatics and hypocrites. You might be sharper than a whole drawer full of razor blades, but that doesn't make you right or correct!

The liberal media was dead wrong, for example, about the war in Iraq, but have we seen any apology, retraction or correction? Hair will grow on a cue ball before that happens.

[blues clues]

SS for the past few months I have been listening conservatives on the radio just to see what they think and so far all Ive heard is the liberal will not do this or that everything wrong in the world is the dem/liberal way of doing things.
Well all of your rupblican/conservative friends are in contorl of the government,and sence they've been there we had two wars,the unemployment has gone up two precent, lost over two million jobs,and put us in debt so deep that our grandkids will be paying it off if they live that long.but one thing I can say for the power-to-be they have give us two tax cuts that will not help anyone but the people who make over 250,000 a year now I don't know about you but I don't know too many folks making that kind of money.most of my friends are out of work or retired. so all I want to say is thank you bush for nothing.
razz

[judyvillecco]

I agree Razz, but you are presenting a logical argument. I appreciate the complement by some that I "respond to questions in a logical manner" but not to certain "goat ropers." It's sad some people aren't able to keep up with great minds and changes. Seems those who accuse are guilty of their own accusations. "Liberals were wrong about Iraq?" Where are the smoking guns, the chemical plants, Sadaam for that matter! We go in to catch these people and cant even get them. What's wrong with our CIA intelligence! Where was and is our proof! I don't think liberals were wrong. Yes, we did a good thing for the people over there, but here in the USA we have people needing help. Until we fix that we have no business going to fix everyone else, I think. Get the logic in that?Maybe that's to hard to think about for all the rich. :cd: Let them eat cake!

And as for you, little Lady, I will discuss anything if you learn manners. If you act like a rude little kid I'll treat you like one. Insults are part of that and I don't respond to slurs on my raising and neither would you. If you want to discuss I will. If you want to be cute and popular and insulting don't expect anything in return here from me. If you act immature I'll treat you like the "toddler" you accuse others of.I've been around little smart aleks all my life and you are no match. To be taken seriously by me you cant play that here.

[HARDCORE]

Now we know why they call this section "Political Debate!"

Now with all of this off of our chests, what else can we raise some hell about, I hope without getting sidetracked into personalities? :x:

[MORTARDUDE]

for God Sakes man !!!! Do a little rersearch !!! The tax cut ( which JFK advocated for sound economic reasons also.. ), which should have been twice as big over 10 years ( by the way the total Federal Budget will still go up over 5 % annually....you could look it up as Casey Stengel would say... ), will show up in anybody's paycheck who has Federal Income tax withheld as soon as 1 July 2003, helps directly families with children who make $ 50,000 or more ( not $ 250,000 LOL LOL !! ) ( nice graphic in USA TODAY the other day that proves this )...It also indirectly helps those on "invisible welfare" or the Earned Income Tax Credit. Since Social Security income is taxable as well as government pensions and unemployment compensation, it helps all of these people to have more take home pay. Taxing dividends and interest is beyond ludicrous. The money you invest in mutual funds, bonds, the stock market, or bank CDs has already passed thru the tax filter, in some cases federal, state, city and other. Why add one more level to it ??? So please, do not keep endlessly repeating that very tired old mantra "it only helps the rich". It is something Trotsky, Marx, Engles, Lenin or other die-hard socialists could have come up with...Our wonderful Congressman ( the President cannot spend a penny ) of both parties, I SAID BOTH PARTIES, have proven time and again, since the end of WW2, to have ZERO self-control when spending "our-hard-earned" money....

A confession...I have grown very weary also of the conservative rants from Limbaugh, Savage, North, Hannity, Liddy, and the like. Bill O'Reilly brings some sanity to all of it by directly confronting folks who make the news on TV, instead of 3+ hours of BS. I have become more and more Libertarian in my views. It would be the best thing that ever happend to our country if a strong third political party could develop to challenge the other two. With "true-campaign-finance-reform" that would allow minimum free access to radio and TV advertising this may become possible.
I am all for the TRUTH. NO ONE, REPEAT NO ONE, has a lock on this. Repeated studies of multiple eyewitnesses to crime have proved that you will have as many different versions of the crime as witnesses... it holds for any discourse on politics or economics.
Our government churns out tons of "fiat" paper money ( backed BY ABSOULUTELY NOTHING ) every DAMN day of the world.....
This runs counter to any laws of finance or commerce ever invented since the start of civilization...What if in your neighborhood each home represented a soverign country. You were the U.S., your neighbor France, down the road Israel and China. You were able to print money off your damn PC anytime you wanted too, only backed by your neighbors "GOOD FAITH" in you...However, the others had natural resources or even products their money was based on. Your kids or your wife get into a war of words with the other neighbors, and suddenly your "good faith" goes down the toilet with your worthless-churned-out-paper-fiat-money. Those with gold or silver coins still have something....Not that hard to understand is it ??? The unemployment statistics you refer to are even more ludicrous...I have a good friend who works for the U. S. Dept. of Labor. Those statistics are simply "W.A.G." ( WILD ASS GUESSES )....The federal government has no idea how many employees and contractors work for it ( estimates as high as 15,000,000+ !!! ), does not know how much money it spends every day, and worst of all, doesn't give a SHIT. I have worked for Uncle Sugar continuously since June 26, 1969 ( counting my 23 months of Army time ), except for 6 months in an un-airconditioned wharehouse for Sears....I know how much is wasted, mis-spent, mis-directed, well intended and missed the mark, and all the rest...Anyone that is near fully dependent on ANY level of government to solve their problems of any kind, will never pry their poor cold cranium out of their nice warm ARSE.....

God.... it is SOOO good to vent sometimes.....off the Soap Box !!!!

Listening to RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE.... LUV IT !!!!!


Larry AKA MORTARDUDE

[reconeil]

First-off,...Welcome Aboard. Plus, and even whether 7 or 70 years of age, or anywhere in between,...it's always a pleasure discussing most anything with those whom apparently prefer honestly, common sense and sound logic over the political BULL and/or political oneupsmanship (ABOVE ALL ELSE - even survival), that you've already run into here.

Regardless, and even though: "Free advice is worth what you pay for it" (phrase must have been coined by some lawyer), I would suggest that you not let any STAUNCH (actually religiously-fanatical) Liberals get-you-down or steer you off track with barbs (a typical tactic) from whatever you wisely have to say.

Besides, why should any people normally revearing the likes of Clinton or The Clintons be taken seriously anyway? We both know it's a waste of time,...and much like trying to get someone to change their religion with 25 words or less. Hell,..."They" might even be somehow CONNECTED, which makes renouncing their gods absolutely impossible.

Neil :cl:

[judyvillecco]

Larry, (Happy Birthday again!) I have to tend to agree with you and Oh No even SS(because I didn't like Clinton!) I voted for McCain and I am his diehard supporter. I too would like to see a third party. Okay so I get off the mantra about the tax cuts for the rich and talk to those of you beurocrats who will not get off the uncle. I understand...I guess I would like and protect a regular job like that too. Perhaps that's the beef! :c: :b: :d: :D Oh nooooo! Did I say I'm jealous of you fat cat beurocrats! :ek: :ek: :ek: :cd: Contrary to popular belief I didn't vote for Clinton nor would I vote for Hillary and would like them to dissappear into the netherland. I don't hate Bush boys just think they are naively uninformed and richly overprotected from where I live on earth.

[reconeil]

Granted, a "Third Party" does theoretically give people another option and/or the lesser of THREE evils instead.

But, and the way I see things, one must believe that without The Perot option, Clinton wouldn't have been elected in the first place,...and if "Uncle"(?) Perot didn't do a similar replay for the second election, Clinton would never have been also gifted a second term.

The-bottom-line, and whether A Wallace or A Perot, most third party candidates normally only take votes away from Republican/Conservatives, since Dems/Libs will vote Dem/Lib no matter whom the persons are. Naturally if Jesse Jackson or the like ran as an Independent taking away large numbers of Democrat Votes it would be a different story,...and The Republican/Conservatives would automatically win. It's all just a matter of getting the numbers (or not).

Neil :cl:

[MORTARDUDE]

we are not fat-cat bureau-crats...Trust me !!! My father worked for the TVA in the 1930s, was in the US Army from 1941-1944, worked as a boiler plant operator at The Millington Naval Air Station from 1944-1976. The most he ever made in one year for base pay was about $ 4,500 !! He was able to raise two children, bought a new house for $ 7,500 in 1950 and paid it off and my mother still lives in it, and almost put me thru college and my mother didn't work... The Civil Service Retirement System ( a top-notch-well-run system that many city, state and county governments still emulate ) was abolished in 1984. What has been created is a real-bastard-monster predicated on unlimited-fantasy-increases in 401K profits, Social IN-Security, and a tiny pension....

Any-who...let me make the federal budgets and tax cuts even plainer.. The federal government has many-multi-billions in "black budgets" ( the exact amount is forever heavily classified ) that cover just about ever secret thing you can imagine...The federal tax in-flow NEVER ever decreases...check it out..NEVER will thanks to FDR and the "temporary" automatic payroll deduction from
WW2...

The chart in USA TODAY said a family with combined household income of $ 50,000 ( the "famed rich folks" ) would realize a tax break of about $ 3,500 per year..Enough to buy a brand new small car and with the cash rebates and low interest, put even more cash in their pockets.....As the news media endlessly repeats..75%+ of the economy is driven by individual consumer purchases and small businesses....It is just one big f**king money wheel..... or game of musical-money-chairs... LOL

'Nuf Sed,

Larry

[MORTARDUDE]

a serious third party would be someone like Teddy Roosevelt...now a days McCain would be great...but the big bugaboo is access to the free media..it would cut the legs out from under all the damn-fund-raising and attendant corruption...
And we could get the DAMN Congress to do some work instead of perpetually jacking each other off like they do now... every DAMN day...

Larry

[Lady Creffield]

Judy: :ah:

I apologize for coming off as a snotty little kid.

I do protest, however, about some of your claims: I never alluded to your raising, much less used slurs.

As for my wanting to be "cute and popular", substantiate that. If you think so, thanks, because it's a nice change from what I'm used to. :re: Insulting..? I'll admit to that. But hold yourself to the same standard, please. I'm not going to revere or defer to you simply because you are older.

I don't enjoy fending people off, and I'm obviously getting on your nerves as well, so let's just drop it. Will you meet me halfway, though? I won't pull any childish :y: -ing if you try to avoid the condescending :x: -ing.

MORTARDUDE: I feel your pain. The Libertarian party should try to develop into more of a definite political entity, rather than having Left and Right Libertarians that seek to distance themselves from either party and its foibles. In the realm of talk-radio, at least, I may be of some help. "Lionel" goes absolutely against the run-of-the-mill, extreme-right hamfistedness on the airwaves lately. Take a look at his website http://www.lionelonline.com and give his show a try. Affiliates are listed on the site. I find it nice background chatter while working on homework and the like. It may or may not appeal to you, given my relatively puerile taste.

blues clues:

"It's funny that when dealing with a conservative, they aways think everyone who dosen't think the way they do are as dumb as a box of rocks."

Compare this to your previous statement:

"every conserv. I'vbe every meet is clueless too"

Could that be because they don't think the way you do?

~Lady Creffield

[MORTARDUDE]

Thanks for sharing my pain... I have obtained very precious little pleasure over the years in promoting any form of political persuasion. They invariably turn into money-grubbing-whores... LOL...It might interest you to know I voted for McGovern, Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush ....

Thanks for the tip about Lionel. Sounds Good. I don't see a way to hear him online. Will try to pick him up long distance on AM. I sometimes like the Black Avenger. Haven't heard him in a long time. He makes mince-meat out of the Leftist-Black-Caucus...but it gets oh so tiresome after awhile...

Believe it or not, I think Ralph Nader could have a first-rate talk program. He is a straight-shooter, but has been kind of out of it since his stroke. I have always respected his research.
Lady C., if you are indeed 14 as indicated, and I have no reason what so ever to doubt you, you are a welcone addition to the eclectic group of about 90 we have here now. My oldest son was 14 in 1989 and he got me interested in Rush Limbaugh who was in his second year then..it was a much better program then..his schtick has worn very thin...with me.

May God Richly Bless You and Your Family,

Larry

[MORTARDUDE]

thanks for filling out your profile..we have become suspicious of those who don't...too many jerks, assholes, site-pests, poseurs,
leeches,wannabes, etc. have dropped in only to be shown the door..

Larry

[judyvillecco]

Oh No...I agree with Neil again! I don't feel well.....it must be in the water..... OK Larry you personally may not be a fat-cat but your statement on anyone dependent on any level of government to solve their problems....I thought also meant government employees and contractors. My head is foggy. :re: :c: I know about those "black budgets" the GAO can't get a real book balance on. You are right about the WW2 also. Looks like campaign finance will never fly either.

I agree that Perot and Wallace were a joke for third party and I don't think McCain will ever leave the Republican party or sadly thanks to the tactics used by Bush will he ever run again for Pres.
I would vote for him if he did as well as Powell but not Cheney. Well it depends on who the Dems run out. If they run out Clinton I'd vote for anyone else.

Like I frequently say, put them in a bag and shake them up they all smell alike after a while. :d:

[MORTARDUDE]

the us-vs-them thing is something the politicians love..it gets them more money to steal...COMMON GROUND and TRUTH is where it is at...God, if we could get Gimpy to agree on a few little things, there may be HOPE yet ??? Thanks for being honest !!!
You are a true Volunteer, even if you are from Knoxville ( bunch of Yankees there in that Ole' War of Northern Aggression don't you know ) !!!


Larry

[blues clues]

Larry, when all these people get voted in they all forget about we the people, and when they go into the halls of congress one party goes to one side and the other goes to the other side, what I'd like to see happen is just go in and have a set and start doing the peoples business wishfully thinking I know, when they run for office bring out the partys not untill.and if they didn't do their job fire them if they didn't show up for work dock them a day's pay just like in the real world.Boy talking about someone living in a dream world I need to wake up.
razz

[MORTARDUDE]

you are taking a step in the right direction..political reform in this country is simple 1) mandatory ( yes, and enforced.. ) voter participation 2) no, repeat NO, money for media political access 3) firm term limits at all levels, federal, state, county, city and local...you have just removed all the ills of politics in one fell swoop...think what our world would be like..Heaven on Earth..it CAN be done...Each of us has to take a STAND ... the pebble in the pond analogy is the strongest one you will ever see.. just think of
Jesus...one man...many have been killed and killed others in His name...one man...His words will stand the test of Eternity...

I am damn sick and tired of all the us-vs-them shit...it accomplishes ZERO..people are still illiterate, hungry, hurting, and suffering, and we are all at fault..yea all of us..

Larry

[judyvillecco]

Yes there's a little saying "Bloom where your planted." I think the media sets us up with the us vs them to lull us to sleep. You have to listen to both sides and know the truth is somewhere in the middle of half-truths. As for Andy...well he is from Bean town! Where is he these days? I'm still a part of his fan club even if he is a yank. :D After all wasn't it Kennedy that said "Ask not what your country can do for you..but what you can do for your country!" How well I remember that speech and how idealistic I was then. How out of touch our children and grandchildren are with the tragedies that followed in our nation. Well duck and roll... :p :c:

[MORTARDUDE]

one of my all time heroes..Read the book "Kill Zone", by Craig Roberts and see why he was really murdered and LBJ took over in a bloody coup...1) He had signed the orders to start the withdrawal of troops from Vietnam and Laos 2 weeks earlier, 2) He had plans in motion to abolish the Federal Reserve System and already printed money backed by silver specie..I have some..and 3) lastly, and the clincher that signed his death certficate, he was near to abolishing the CIA forever...He was not a member of the Council of Foreign Relations either. He was a man of rare courage and vision an was murdered because of it...
We can imagine where he and RFK and MLK had lived...mayhaps in some parallel dimension or universe..but it was never to be...

Larry

[judyvillecco]

Will do. I always believed that snake Johnson was behind it. In fact when the dems made him choose Johnson as his running mate my aunt who was head of the Dem's national committee in K-Town said he would get Kennedy killed and she was right.Johnson wanted the Presidency however he could get it even by murder I believe. I believed then and now he was involved. He didn't even show remorse. :re: and that was the point. Kennedy gave some of us hope for the first time only to be dashed in shock. None of us believed then or now that the CIA wasn't involved or that our government wasn't connected to his or Robert's, or Martin Luther King's deaths. The government thinks the public is so stupid we won't do another revolution.
Term limits is a form of revolution. You can't take our guns another. What's next?

[Lady Creffield]

Mandatory voting? But what of the people who are truly apathetic and simply vote for whoever without thought?

[judyvillecco]

Do you really believe people vote without thought? People who take the time to go to the polls know why they are going. Even those who don't go show apathy to a system of voting that is flawed. Voting is the one right left to us. It always says something. Many people died and suffered for that right.

[Lady Creffield]

Sorry, I should have provided more context, and I worded that incorrectly. The people who take the time to vote now, when it is voluntary, are indeed people who have given the action thought. But if it was made mandatory, as Larry suggested, the people who do not vote because they do not care--and yes, these people DO exist--would be forced to do so. If they were, then they'd arbitrarily choose something that they weren't very informed about and sully the results.

I hope that helps elucidate it somewhat.

[Keith_Hixson]

Voluntary, for those who really care! And, only those who vote should be allowed to complain.

Keith ;)

[MORTARDUDE]

I put the "mandatory voting" idea on the table to prove a point...It is the single most powerful and least used weapon to change this country for the best. The politicians do not want you to know this.
The powers that really run this world usually have both or all 3 sides on their payroll, so "any way you look at it you lose"...( apologies to Simon and Garfunkel and Mrs. Robinson )...that is not to say that we shouldn't participate, and keep pushing for a better world....If there could be some incentive to vote responsibly, EMPHASIS ON THE WORD RESPONSIBLY !!, ....say a break on taxes..property taxes..or even free lottery tickets..hell.. there are all kinds of possiblities...a little story.....
In 1974 I lived in inner city Memphis in an apartment complex that was all white..we moved 8 months later and the neighborhood is now all black..There is a school just down the road where I played softball..This precinct has voted totally Democrat ( usually about 800 - 0 ) for as long as I have been watching it..except for last year.. when the Republicans got 2 votes. The total number of registered voters vs. adults vs. those that vote is about 50% and 25 %..so 25% of the folks in that precinct vote 100% for lying cheating corrupt weasels everytime ( and trust me ..they are )...sad ..so.. sad....but there is hope..if all of the things I listed were put in place..even slightly modified..there would be a SEA CHANGE !!....Am I optimistic ? ..yes...I have seen the worst that man can do to himself in the rest of the world...we are so blessed...enough for now..

Larry

[judyvillecco]

The discussions above are why we still have the electoral college I guess. The electoral college knows best and the popular vote doesn't. However rarely does the popular vote differ and that's what makes America great. It isn't perfect but it's better than most. ;) I'm with Keith though I vote and I get to complain! :D

[blues clues]

I have never liked the electoral college but our foundering fathers though it was the right thing to do who am I to disagree with something that has worked for over three hundred years. would much reather see the popular vote be the last word but,,, as far as mandatoy voting not a change to easy to get one man rule just look at some of the other country's that have said here you vote and by the way this is who to vote for! been voting every sence 1966 haven't miss to many years doing so,and YES I COMPLAIN, and will untill my voice is gone from my body.

razz
P.S I have voted for the rupblicans before may God have mercy on me.

[MORTARDUDE]

thanks for being honest..I bet 'ol Gimpy has voted Republican too...OUCH !! I voted for McGovern because Nixon drafted me and sent me to Cambodia..voted for Carter..I wasn't too impressed with Ford and sick of Nixon and his buddies..Carter was a major disappointment..If the Iran rescue had gone better he wouldn't have lost so bad...never was a chance I would vote for Mondale ( I will tax, tax, tax you and you will love it ), Dukakis,
Clinton, Clinton, Perot, Perot, or Gore...I would always consider a third party, Anderson was probably the last credible one...

Our city and county are run by part-timers as is the school board for both...for an area with a population over a million ( total for county ) it is very-sorry-leadership..the voters sure don't help much either by returning the same losers to office year after year...

Larry

[judyvillecco]

I think I wrote in Mickey Mouse one time for something because the choices were so bad. I wrote in McCain even though Bush was on the ticket as a protest...couldn't vote for Gore, couldn't vote for Bush. Sometimes the choices are do you want to be shot or hung! :re: :cd: :b: :c:

[Gimpy]

I stays away fer a couple-a weeks and lookee what happens. A perfectly good debate about the so-called "liberal bias" within the media turns into something totally incoherent with a new "county" heard from.

BTW dude, I DID vote republican a few times---even the FIRST time for old Ronnie Reagen---but, sure as HELL not the next time. It was under his "regime" that we veterans received the LEAST amount of help than any other time in modern history!

Back to the "subject matter" now.

Now lookee heanh little missee "Lady" Crowfield, Creeflow, Cryflung, or whomeva you is. Dontcha come around heanh spouting your so-called grammatical "correctness" while appearing to be the antithesis of all things gracious and goody-goody. ESPECIALLY when attempting to put forth dialogue so profoundly inept and full of "stuff" you've read in yo history books! As you seem to have somewhat of semblance of "schooling" and apparent limited command of the English language of which attempts to exhibit your "book learning" are at best infantile and immature, or at worst---a futile example of exhibitionism! Your attempts to encourage such folks as my friend(s) SuperSnotty and Recon and other such "Kornsurvatives" with their failed positions and arguements regarding the subject matter are no more than infinitely inadequate. If you are as you say you are (young and obviously inexperienced), then your attempts to opine on subjects of which you have absolutely no practical, applicable life experience is no more than an arbitrary appraisal of your "book learning"!

Your "mocking" of my attempts to "humorize" the names of my friend SuperScout (at least I consider him my friend, we share many of the same life experiences, including sheding blood for our beliefs and our country---he may however, feel I am no more than just a "cyber-aquaintance" of his---and that's OK as well) and his "Kornsurvativness" are apparently intended to draw out a "combative" nature and somewhat designed to incur my wrath. If this is so----my congratulations, you've been minimally successful! You see I've had many, many involvements over the years with "snot-nosed" little know-it-alls that have no more than "book-learning" to bring to the "table" of "knowledge" and were NEARLY as arrogant and condescending as you.

When you are "old" enough to vote, and then reap the benefits or repercussions of that action and have gained the TRUE knowledge of "life" in the "real" world----THEN you may---just may, have the ability to accurately and substantially offer positions and arguements that have some merit.

Until then, ta, ta and "back to the books", huh??

[MORTARDUDE]

pay Grumpy... er Gimpy.. no never-mind....You have the right and privilege to say whatever you want to around here...How else will you ever learn ? 'Nuf Sed !!

Larry

P.S. : So Gimpy admits voting for Reagan ? I knew it !!

[Lady Creffield]

Mr. Gimpy;

I sincerely hope that made you feel better. :)

[Gimpy]

It sure as heck did!

[Lady Creffield]

That's good. Feel free to do so whenever you feel the urge...I just seem to be good at annoying the heck out of people ;) .

[Gimpy]

I'm SURE that when YOU stop "annoying", I'll stop getting the "urge".

Have a nice day,

[judyvillecco]

Well the Gimp is a very smart man. Smart enough not to vote for Reagan the second time! I did the same when I realized the same thing that is happening now was happening then. Speaking of which i gotta go read what the Gimp has to say about those hidden tax cuts. good to hear you back Gimpy! ;)Sorry Little Lady C. but we warned you it gets rough. There's heat in these kitchens but just be careful of your elders! :a: ;)