Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY college!

Ron -
I googled. What in the world are you trying to say? That territorial expansion is the manifest destiny of the US? Pax Americana? I'm not getting the connection of your posting to the points that you were replying to. :Wth:

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

If the above post (by MarinJohn) is what is meant by intelligent discourse, I must be in the wrong buffet line.

From what I have learned through my own education, being able to disagree with someone after listening to their arguements without resorting to namecalling and telling everyone else how stupid they are was considered intelligent discourse.

 

Good advice.

I probably need to be more selective in what I respond to as well. However, sometimes the errors of fact are so egregious that I fear that others may mistakenly take them as fact. I know that it's not likely that I change the mind of the poster, there is really no way that you can get sufficient proof into a forum post, but at least those that may be looking get to see another side.

I particularly am appalled when Carter is slandered. From my perspective, there is a well funded and organized anti Carter group out there. I suspect that the a-religious Republican leaders -- which is most of them -- are very proud of themselves over having duped the religious right into voting Republican. They must see people like Carter as a threat to that deception. Thus, realizing that the best defense is a good offense, they have perpetated a concerted effort to misrepresent history and make Carter look like something he never was.

Sadly, they have been quite successful.

 

I think Ron is trying to say that political discourse has not deteriorated and then went on to find some 19th century instances where political discourse was worse than it was today, by citing, amoung other things, the Civil War.

I think he fails to realize that when someone says that things have deteriorated over the last 20 years, that the comparison relates to what happened about 21 to maybe 30 years ago. NOT to how bad it may have been 145 years ago.

I guess that is what he meant.

 

I get it now, MarinJohn, you're trolling with a satirical parroting of politically polar discourse. Nice job. I also sometimes wonder if the PM DJ on Air America is an elaborate send up of right wing call-in radio by Al Franken. Complete with paranoid delusional monologues and fawning callers, its like the anti-matter to Rush's matter.

 

Okay, set the wayback machine to 50 years ago and -
"I have here in my hand a list of 205 . . . a list of names"
or 30 years ago -
"I am not a crook"

The thing that bugs me is the lack of perspective; debate that goes like this:
"you're a partisan hack, I'm a bipartisan statesman"
"no you're not, you're diddly squat"
"I know you are, but what am I?"
"That's not an argument"
"Yes it is"
...

 

Must listen to PM AirAmerica! Does it matter/anti-matter? I do find partisian hacks attract other ph's, and the statesmen get drowned out if not stomped on. But there's hope...hacks can become statesmen and be just as effective, and statesmen have so much more class. Hmmm, hack=easy statesmen=class easy=short term class=long term. Corporation=short term gain for society Statesman=long term gain for society Must listen to PM AirAmerica...

 

Prius04, you said earlier that the msm is right wing. They'll be shocked. The msm has been proclaiming its left-wing leaning for decades. I hope they don't find out. They'll be disappointed in themselves. Carter has not been slandered. Carter lionized Kim Il Sung. When Clinton became President, Sung made overatures to the Administration for nuclear talks, provided Carter was negotiating. Nothing happened. In 1994, Sung died; and his son, Kim Jong-Il took over N. Korea as dictator. He continued the request for Carter. On the face of it it would appear to be a feather in Carter's hat, until you realize that Carter had just received a ringing endorsement from 2 generations of ruthless megalomaniacs. Clinton unwisely sent Carter. Carter, without conferring with Clinton, signed an agreement with N. Korea giving them enriched uranium, light-water reactors, loads of technology, and no requirements for oversight, documentation, or inspections. Only 4 or 5 months ago, Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke finally admitted that Carter's deal with N. Korea was a disaster. I know this doesn't agree with your personal assessment of the man. I looked up the word "slander" in the unabridged dictionary; and no where does it define "slander" as an opinion about someone that is contrary to Prius04's opinion.

 

Ej,

I just tried a google search on your Albright/Holbrook suggestion about Carter and NK. It took be to a dozen web sites about black helicoptors, world government and other fringe right wing thinking.

So now I understand perfectly where you are coming from.

And you are right, recently reporters in the msm were polled and 35% of them described themselves as liberal and about 35% described themselves as conservative. But those are only the reporters. When the editors were polled, the shift to the conservative side was marked, and when you counted the owners, it was pretty near 100% conservative.

Sp yes, there are some liberals in the msm. So that must make the msm liberal. So exactly what would a centrist media consist of? 2% liberal, 65% conservative?

When facts are used, the msm has clearly moved markedly to the right. Maybe not as far yet as Faux News, but it's getting there.

And in the unabridge dictionary, I make sure they use my real name, not prius04.

 

Prius04, good luck with your Prius. We should have ours within the next couple of weeks, so I hope you'll wish us luck. In any case, don't be fooled by conservatives; we aren't as bad as the media portrays. We aren't NEARLY as bad as you seem to think. We'll be looking forward to your future postings!

 

I've got 12k on mine and I love it. It truly is the best car I've own.

Today I took my wife and mother in law to visit my father in laws grave. We then drove around the cemetery a bit to read old gravestones. My mother in law commented on how silent the car was. The car seemed to respectfully stay in stealth for a good 15 minutes as we drove around at 5 mph. The birds were all chirping as we had all 4 windows down and the AC off. What a beautiful day.

Good luck with your car, and I too look forward to your posts.

 

Re: Ugh! "W" speaking at commencement at MY colleg

I think Emilyjohn has had some great posts! I wonder though, Emily...john...no gender? You mean someone is willing to tell you whether they are a liberal or a conservative before they are willing to tell you what sex they are. Personally, I think whenever we discover someone that has bought a Prius is conservative they ought to have to give their car back or something. :wink: Just kidding, I enjoyed seeing Emilyjohn and Prius04 get back to their mutual love of their Prius.

 

Fredatgolf, my wife and I do everything we can together, and that includes logging onto Priuschat. I do all I can to see to it that SHE goes first. I think she likes it that way; I just love it! And that Prius04 - he puts on one heck of a debate, doesn't he? Thanx for your posting. We'll be looking for you.

 

My wife and I are pretty much the same. The license on our Corolla is JUSTWE2. Actually, we have had that name on several cars beginning about 18 years ago with a Celica convertible and recently on an more aprapro Honda Insight. Couldn't resist the attempt at humor on Emilyjohn even though I figured it was a team name. As for Prius04, no comment because if I said anything I might expose the fact that I am a flaming liberal.

 

Fredatgolf, I'm 62 and was a liberal until my senior year in college. I had 2 majors. One of them was Sociology. I had to write a thesis to complete my major. While pouring thru the research people had done, I realized that so little of it made sense. That was the beginning of my epiphany. I then entered the Navy, and I divorced myself from the current brand of liberal thinking. Now, if you're the type of liberal that existed in the 50's and early 60's, then you and I probably have a lot in common. But today's liberalism has embraced so much of the far left that I profoundly disagree with it.

 

Acutally, I was a staunch conservative in college and up until about 1965. I worked with a member of the John Birch Society and was introduced to the "ends justifies the means philosophy." As I looked at things more carefully, I could see how the game was being played. Now I don't think conservatives are John Birchers, but I do see a connection in that way of thinking with the evangelicals. Anyway, I hope I am a centrist and not a flaming liberal because I see evil in both extremes. I know I look liberal on some issues but I look conservative on others. The biggest thing I am against is name calling and sometimes labels seem to fall into that category. I think Bill Clinton, who refuses to criticize "W" sets a good example. He was on Larry King the other night and praised both Bushes even tho he disagrees with them, particulary with "W". I guess he remembers what it is like trying to do that job in the midst of acrimony.

 

Seems to me Bush is the same way. Doesn't call people names. Frankly, I have no use for either Clinton. I think apathy is what I feel for them. I have no use for the Birchers either. Very often it isn't the way a person is geared or thinks that drives him to the extreme. Very often, it seems to me, it's misinformation or ignorance that can drive extremism. That's why I've lost so much respect for a large segment of the media. It seems largely, philosphically, incapable of informing. The Dan Rather episode and this latest Newsweek gaff are not isolated examples of what I'm talking about; they've become quite common. The free press has a lot of power. Along with that power they have the responsiblity to be accurate.

 

I have come upon two sources recently that trace the evolution of the media in television. Gone are the Edward R. Morrows, and their demise has been in conjunction with the ownership issue. Now our news sources are owned by conglomerates. Instead of investigative reporting, our obligation is to present two sides every time. Something has been lost. But I do not blame the journalists. I believe we still have some good ones. Even Dan Rather, whom I never really liked, in my view was and is an excellent journalist. Wherever the journalists and the media are in the scheme of things, I still look to them. In a way they are all we have got. I am an avid reader of the Christian Science Monitor. To me, they represent "real" fair and balanced reporting, not the kind claimed by Fox News. I think we have to be skeptical and see through the false fronts of the media and discover the essence of the news for ourselves. In that process evolves liberals and conservatives and name callers, but so be it. The real story tilts toward good in spite of it all, not because of it all.

 

Bush may not call people names, but Karl Rove is an expert at character assassination and other dirty tricks. There has never been someone as Machiavellian as Karl Rove -- nor anyone as successful. And Karl and GW are joined at the hip.

I've got to step in on this one lest those with an agenda just might succeed in re-writing history. (I’m referring to Faux News and not necessarily EJ.)

The Dan Rather/CBS news story was extremely accurate in every detail. The only problem was that one source, among numerous sources, was phony. Yet, even THAT source was probably accurate in what was stated as it was probably a planted copy of what was an accurate document. The woman who was purported to have typed that document was on TV. She testified that she remembers typing a document very much like the one in question, but that the one in question was not it.

Let me say this again as this is something Faux News and Karl Rove do not want you to know. The Secretary that typed the diaries, memos and minutes for the officer purported to have produced the memo that CBS went and used, testified on TV that she did in fact type a document expressing her bosses concern over the special treatment that GW was getting so many decades ago. And that the CBS document in question was quite similar and accurate, but it was not the one she typed so long ago. (Which would make someone conclude that someone else saw that document that was now missing, and tried to reproduce it.)

And as for the Newsweek story, that too seems to be turning out to be a lot closer to accurate than inaccurate. The Pentagon just released data to that affect.

Thus, the CBS story and the Newsweek story were both very close to perfect. However, they were not perfect and that lack of perfection became the story. Thus, those with an agenda to obfuscate the facts succeeded yet again in making the Bush adminstration, or GW himslef, appear to be something that they are not.

 

I am afraid that we have numerous Watergates going on right now that we will never know about. Let's just keep on knowing that somehow, our overall drift will be in a positive direction.