Cynical Nation

What can I say, you're a genius.

I think that, after eight years of Clinton Derangement Syndrome (CDS) from the right and eight more of what you call BDS from the left, we're in for continued syndromes of a deranged type no matter who is elected president--next year, and in '12 and '16 and onward.
Half the country will hate and half will support, regardless of whether its Pres. H. Clinton or R. Giuliani or whoever.
My theory of the past several years is that the Internet (with its instant news round the clock), cable news (with its constant need to present breaking news) and talk radio on both ends (where the need to fill countless hours of time leads to micro-examination of everything, thus turning every molehill into a mountain) has led to the incredible fissure in our society and the permanent roughly 50-50 split in the electorate.
Instead of being able to take time to consider, ponder, analyze and think through issues and events, everyone--the media, politicians, our leaders and the public--now feels the need to instantly analyze, assign blame, take credit, offer reaction and pick apart.

Thank you Fred and Barry, for putting this BDS and Plame situation into common sense

"Half the country will hate and half will support, regardless of whether its Pres. H. Clinton or R. Giuliani or whoever." (Fred)


People who are politically engaged THINK it's 50/50 split Fred, but that's because they mistakenly think that the entire electorate is involved or cares about political matters as much as they do.

Thankfully, only about 20 to 25 percent of the electorate is engaged on any deep level, though hopefully that number will continue to grow.

That doesn't mean that the rest of the populace is misinformed or even uninformed, far from it, in my view.

Among those who are politically engaged and active, the border issue is probably 55% to 45% in favor of an "enforcement first" policy, when the public is polled it's 80/20 in favor of enforcement first. It was overwhelming public pressure that brought down the recent flawed Bill dealing with illegal immigration.

Gay marriage is a 50/50 issue among those who are politically active, it's 2 to 1 (65% to 35%) AGAINST gay marriage when the general public is polled.

I like the public's view (so far), just as I'm sure those who are more Liberal than I am, don't much care for the general public's views.

When you think about it, it's amazing that it now seems a 50/50 split. Up through the 1980s, the media was overwhelmingly Liberal, there were virtually no dissenting voices and the majority of those who were politically engaged were academicians and media types, which made the Left/Right split back then APPEAR 80/20 Left, as so few of the general public were involved in politics and current events.

But since then, politics has gone the way of air travel - once the singular purview of the so-called "elites," you now have virtually everyone, from every walk of life flying and now also engaged in the political discourse.

In both cases, the so-called "elites" have lamented that "This has coursened the public discourse."

That's what opening things up, or "democratizing" an arena does - it makes it more available to poorer and workingclass people and that does coursen things a bit....but the end result (opening things up) is well worth any coursening, in my view.

"Gay marriage is a 50/50 issue among those who are politically active, it's 2 to 1 (65% to 35%) AGAINST gay marriage when the general public is polled.
"I like the public's view (so far), just as I'm sure those who are more Liberal than I am, don't much care for the general public's views."

And I'm sure you like the public's view when it comes to Iraq (overwhelmingly GET US OUT or at least DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT) and Bush (he blows).

I agree with those polls about Iraq!

I think it's undeniable that the war with Saddam's Iraq went extremely well.

Over in less than three weeks....DONE.

The post-Saddam "recnstruction of Iraq" has not gone well and has apparently been badly mismanaged. The public is right on that and rightly frustrated that there is no clear goal to our "re-construction of Iraq."

I don't believe there is a single poll that suggests that Americans, in large numbers, believe we should abandon the military war against globalized Sharia-based Islam. I think, if such a poll were conducted the public would overwhelmingly realize how vital our militaqry WoT is, as well.

As for Bush, I'm honest....I've always been honest about such things - I've acknowledged that Bush, like almost all Presidents (with a few exceptions like Carter) is a "mixed bag."

You'll find that view in my previous posts plenty, you won't find much adoration for anyone.

Bush has been excellent on the economy (those tax cuts INCREASED revenues, HALVED the deficit, now at 204 Billion, in record time and created 8.8 million new jobs since 2003) and the WoT (the Patriot Act, the NSA wiretaps, etc., and America hasn't been attacked in six years), while he's been terrible on the border issue and on reining in excessive spending and pork.

Bush deserves his 28% approval rating, just as the current Democratic Congress deserves theirs (14%)....the previous Congress had a 37% approval rating back in 2005.

"37%: percentage of people in the latest poll who approve of the way Congress is doing its job."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-03-14-congress-poll_x.htm

Again, I think the public is very discerning. This current Congress (the Pelosi Congress) is a lot less popular than even the previous one - the DeLay Congress, was.

I agree with the public about that, as well.

OK, so maybe you disagree with me on the borders ("enforce the law, punish illicit employers, dry up those illicit jobs that draw the bul of the illegals and they'll self-deport") and on gay Marriage ("civil unions for gays - OK, but NO on "gay Marriage" that COULD be used to attempt to force Churches to Marry gays, etc.), but there's no reason to get petulant about that.

I agree with the public on Bush, in my view and in that of many others, he isn't nearly Conservative enough.

I agree with them on Congress;

(*) The 2005 Congress - 37%

(*) The 2007 Congress - 14%

And I agree with the public on Iraq - the "war" against Saddam's Iraq was over in the blink of an eye. The post-Saddam re-construction hasn't gone well, partly due to the Bush administration's mismanagement and partly due to the fact that the Iraqis haven't held up their end at all.

not to antagonize, but how does W "blow"? I've always have felt this was an emotional reaction, considering that as a rightie, he has not tried things that I expected as a rightie (build a DMZ zone between us and Mexico, South-Dakota style ban on abortion, internment of Arab-americans post 9/11, rather eat his own foot than work with Ted Kennedy on policy, etc)

If the main dissatifaction comes from what's going on in Iraq, I can somewhat understand. But I think "he blows" is just a cop out for helplessness in new and challenging times.

If this is considered a defense on W and you hate it for such, so be it.
We seem so eager to claim incompetency, yet I've yet to hear anyone talk of competency of *anybody* in DC. The people threw out the "incompetent" Rep. congress last year to get another "incompetent" congress this year, only made up of mostly Dems this time. So what is competency? What does not blow?

Damn, I'll have to respind Monday! Gotta run at this moment. But, trust me, he blows.

Thanks, fred. I'm not trying to have an argument, just clearer understanding.

Barry,
You surprised me with this post. I hate to say it, it seems that JMK may have an effect on you and you have started believing some of his "theories".

There is no BDS. Never was one. Let me give you an example: If in 2002, I had posted in your blog that it was VERY obvious to me then that there was absolutely NO reason to start a war in Iraq and that the whole thing was a hoax (as it was), you would have probably thought that I suffer from some sort of "derangement" syndrome and you would immediately dismiss such an opinion. That is exactly what I thought then and, as you know, I was proven right.

If what you wrote is correct, the majority of the country suffers from various degrees of "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Because pretty much everyone is convinced now that he is a terrible president and that starting the war in Iraq was based very wrong. And if you think that such a reaction by most Americans is NOT justified and it is some sort of "BDS", think again. Think of the tens or hundreds of thousands of dead from that unnecessary disastrous war.

Although "BDS" sounds funny (and thanks for making such a diagnosis on me), the whole situation is most certainly tragic and I am sure you realize that.

Rachel, there's no way for anyone to make any other case than that G W Bush is a mixed bag!

You're honest about things and have no axe to grind, and even though we probably differ on the issues we like and dislike, we can admit there has been some good and some bad with the current administration.

From your perspective, he's apparently better on the borders than you'd anticipated and hasn't overturned Roe, as well as more willing to work with the likes of Ted Kennedy, which he did on the, in my view, ill-conceived NCLB Act. As you noted, "he has not tried things that I expected of a rightie (build a DMZ zone between us and Mexico, South-Dakota style ban on abortion, internment of Arab-americans post 9/11, rather eat his own foot than work with Ted Kennedy on policy, etc)."

From my perspective, he's been terrible on the border issue - the Bill that would've effectively legalized 12 million illegal immigrants was INANE for two reasons.

First it was lauded as a solution to America's "cheap labor" needs - well, the status quo best serves those! Legalizing 12 million illegal migrant workers (well, 10.8 million migrant workers and 1.2 million various thugs and criminals) would instantly make them eligible for WIC, food stamps, section-8 housing and a raft of other social programs that would transform them overnight into "lazy Americans."

Second, it was billed as a means of getting the terrorists among them to come out of the shadows. What DOPE thought that idiotic defense up?! The vast majority of the criminals, let alone the terrorists among this group DON'T want U.S. citizenship! And WHY would a terrorist come "out of the shadows" for citizenship in a country he wants to destroy?

Bush was terrible on the borders (still is, in my view) and championing that star-crossed "Immigration Reform Bill" was a huge blunder.

Awkwardly enough, my next major problem was at least in part due to his "working with the wet-brained and adled Ted Kennedy" on monstrosities like the prescription drug boondoggle and the NCLB Act, both of which helped "bust the budget."

From a Conservative perspective he's been great on the domestic WoT (the Patriot Act, the NSA intercepts, the targeted illegal alien round-up post-9/11...and no attacks on U.S. soil in about six years) and at least very good (B+) on the WoT abroad - two major terror supporters (Afghanistan's Taliban and Iraq's Saddam) down, both Germany & France have turned to more Conservative, more pro-American governments (Angela Merckel & Nicholas Sarkozy respectively), making for the prospects of a stronger Western front against terrorism. At this very moment, I am fervently praying that Sarkozy begins the mass deportations of the Muslim invaders within France (most from north and East Africa) and I hold out hope that that sort of response will take hold across the entire European continent, resulting in Europe vomiting up its Muslim refuse.

And on the economy he's been as good as I could've expected, inheriting the Tech Bubble Bust recession, exacerbated by the devastation and subsequent domestic security and military outlays, not to mention the business scandals that flourished since the late 1990s exploding and Sarb-Ox putting an anchor on business growth since its inception, and this administration turned it around with tax cuts designed to increase revenues!

As a result, the recession was short-lived and not nearly as deep as it could've been. Interest rates have remained low, the inflation rate has been incredibly low and unemployment near historic lows (almost the EXACT OPPOSITE of Carter's Stagflation). While government revenues have gone up, so has productivity and personal income...and the Dow has gone from a recession low of 7700 to a new record high of over 140000!

On the WoT & the economy he gets high marks, there's no viable way to argue otherwise, while on the border issue and on failing to rein in pork and some excessive spending, this admninistration has been poor.

Thanks for your reasons why you dislike W, JMK. And thanks for not being smarmy.

Fred's opinion about information overload really hits the nail on the head. One never hears *good* things about the Pres. and one knows he has does some good. But with news and op eds that drowns in the negative (with justifiably good reason), it perverts the whole view.

also, who do y'all think is competent? that is the question I'm *really* asking. This is not a bash- W or don't- bash- W -session. We've had trillions of those since 2000. But is there anyone in the Beltway or even your own hometown you would consider a competent leader

"who do y'all think is competent? that is the question I'm *really* asking." (Rachel)


I think, for the most part, we get the government we deserve.

Liberal enclaves like NYC send the likes of Jerry Nadler, who, like San Franciscan Nancy Pelosi and Nevadan Harry Reid, opposes protecting citizens who contact the authorities over suspicious behaviors, from civil suits, while Conservative enclaves like the district in Long Island that elected Peter King (I really like that guy) who supports protecting citizens who report suspicious behaviors from civil litigation.

Entire regions of the country elect people to Congress who best represent their individual views. Farm states tend to vote in socially Conservative representatives who also support agricultural subsidies.

Congress has long had an approval rating under 50%. Yes, the current 14% is among the lowest, BUT, most people polled have a problem with "other people's" Congressional Reps, NOT their own.

We call government assistance for other people "wasteful spending," while endorsing government spending that helps us - that's just human nature.

The answer, at least in my view, certainly isn't, "Well, maybe we should all just accept pork all the way around."

No, that's not gonna happen, so we're pretty much stuck with entire regions of the country sending people to Congress with what amount to antithetical agendas - south against north, east against west, etc.

Politicians respond to public pressure (like they did on the recent flawed Immigration Reform Bill) AND to special interest PAC money - money from corporate, Union and other (NRA, NARAL, etc.) donors.

The problem ISN'T "incompetent politicians."

The problem is that we are a nation of special interests and divided factions - we all WANT those things that we perceive benefit ourselves at other people's expense, while we DON'T WANT those things we perceive benefit others at our expense.

I believe that most of the incompetency is to be found in the electorate (US), NOT as much, in the elected officials.

In fact, most elected officials are quite good at "delivering the goods" to their constituents," usually by making deals that allow other constituents to also get their "free stuff."

That's my view.

“There is no BDS. Never was one.” (BW)


Actually, it’s OFFICIAL! There actually IS BDS;

Bush Derangement Syndrome: (BDS) is a political term coined by the American Conservative political columnist Charles Krauthammer in a 2003 column. It refers to a purported tendency by some to blame President George W. Bush for matters for which he is not responsible. The term has been used in newspaper columns and editorials, on talk radio and Fox News, and in the Conservative Blogosphere.

Krauthammer defined BDS as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency—nay—the very existence of George W. Bush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome

One example of BDS is people claiming erroneous things like “Bush has banned EST research,” or claiming that “The Patriot Act violates the Constitution,” (the courts say, it does NOT) and blaming the Bush administration for the passage of the Patriot Act – it was passed almost unanimously by Congress and if the current crop of Democrats really believed it “violated the Constitution,” they SHOULD’VE had it on their 100 days agenda, of things to rectify, RIGHT? They haven’t uttered a peep about it...God love’m!

Still another example is those who oppose an “Enforcement First Border Policy” (like yourself) claiming that “Bush is bad on the borders. The ONLY people “bad on the border issue” are those who support any form of legalization for the illegal migrants here now and yet another example (this COULD go on forever) is people claiming that “this is a bad economy,” when NOT a SINGLE economic indicator leads to that assessment – very low interest rates, low inflation and near record low interest rates, rising tax revenues, the deficit down to $204 Billion, cut by more than half in record time AND BOTH rising productivity and rising personal incomes, not to mention a Dow that’s gone from a recession low of 7700 to over 14000!

BW, you’ve had many chances to make the case that “the war in Iraq was unjustified and based on a hoax,” but you’ve been unable to make the case for that, while I HAVE made the case that it was (1) completely justified (Saddam’s Iraq violated 1441 (passed as a “last chance resolution) in order to maintain a strategy of “Deterrence by Doubt”) and (2) necessary to depose Hussein (Hussein’s Iraq was a rogue state terror supporter). At least be gracious enough to admit that you’ve been unable to make your case – your opinion doesn’t count as “a case.”

The saddest thing I’ve seen around here is your deluding yourself into thinking that Barry’s “come around to your perspective.”

You initially, quite mistakenly considered Barry a “Bush lover,” even though he enumerated many, many issues he disagreed with Bush over. In my view, Barry is not so much a “Conservative” (he may be on some issues) as a Libertarian.

Since you hold to no absolute principles (ie. “the sanctity of private property,” or “the view that people should be free to do with their own bodies what they wish,” or “the view that people can only be free so far as government does not meddle in their lives,” etc.) you mistakenly take some Libertarian views as “similar to your own,” and thus when Barry utters them, you, again mistakenly, see them as capitulations on his part.

Can you see where all this ties into why you CAN’T make logical, consistent arguments for your positions?

"The saddest thing I’ve seen around here is your deluding yourself into thinking that Barry’s “come around to your perspective.” (JMK)


"Can you see where all this ties into why you CAN’T make logical, consistent arguments for your positions?" (JMK)


That's what I mean by your being "full of yourself" JMK. Responses like that are "civil but mean." Maybe that's what Rachel calls "smarmy." Whatever it is, it's not one of your better traits.

While I agree that there are people who blame Bush for everything including bad weather, I think you made that point in your initial argument and didn't have to show such disdain for others who don't argue as you do.

While I like and tend to agree with your view of free people being responsible for all their choices - "freedom as liberty" as you'd call it, I can see why some people would have a problem with that, because that kind of freedom puts those who are not as well-educated, not as well-connected and having not as good judgment at a big disadvantage.

The problem is that ANY attempts to remedy that through government intervention seems to lead to that government micromanaging all our lives.

I guess that's why I wish that BlueWind or someone would formulate equally full and equally passionate arguments in favor of a more intrusive government rooted in compassion, and a less intrusive one when it comes to criminalizing things and intruding for safety/security purposes.

"I guess that's why I wish that BlueWind or someone would formulate equally full and equally passionate arguments"

Susan,
To respond in detail to JMK's unfounded and misleading arguments it would take too much of my time. I dont have so much time to spare for JMK's ridiculous arguments. But what you wrote above simply makes sense. That's what we need, "more intrusive government rooted in compassion, and a less intrusive one when it comes to criminalizing things and intruding for safety/security purposes." (your quote).

JMK deliberately misleads sometimes, and other times simply does not understand the issues. As an example, he claims above that the BDS led some to claim that Bush "banned (embryonic stem cell research". That is most certainly misleading, to create the impression that "BDS" leads people to blame Bush wrongly.

The truth of the matter is that Bush has not formally banned embryonic stem cell research. But he DID block federal funding (with the exception of some essentially unusable cell lines). Blocking federal funding, as Bush did, to such an important scientific area impedes scientific progress as a whole and it is a disastrous action. So, it is not banning, but it does have catastrophic consequences for research in that area. So who what is more important in this instance, the fact that some liberals used the wrong term to describe the actions of Bush on stem cell research, or Bush's disastrous actions?

"To respond in detail to JMK's unfounded and misleading arguments it would take too much of my time." (BlueWind)


THAT'S the problem BlueWind - they aren't "unfounded."

They are valid arguments that many people find compelling and he doesn't rely on mere opinion.

My brother, is a Marine who is back from a second tour in Iraq and he agrees, with very few exceptions, with JMK.

JMK's right about the lead up to the war and Saddam Hussein's refusal to comply with UN Resolution 1441 and since he sent me that NY Times article on Saddam's "Deterrence by Doubt," I have to admit that the NY Times certainly did document that strategy and it was one that neither America, nor Britain could allow to continue.

He's also been honest about the post-Saddam reconstruction being badly mismanaged.

Even your argument to prove the 'ridiculousness" of his arguments,the one about JMK saying that "BDS leads people to make false claims like 'Bush banned embryonic stem cell research,' " is, well, sloppy.

As JMK said and you agreed, Bush did not actually ban embryonic stem cell research, he merely cut off government funding for it, so there's no actual "ban" in effect.

Even you agree with that! Your own argument says as much, "So, it is not banning..."....so then those who claim that "Bush banned embryonic stem cell research," are wrong, by your own admission.

I think it's those people who claim "Bush banned embryonic stem cell research" who are being "misleading," BlueWind.

You gave an opinion about my statement, "That's what we need, "more intrusive government rooted in compassion, and a less intrusive one when it comes to criminalizing things and intruding for safety/security purposes," saying, "that's what we need," but I didn't and I'll admit that I'm unable, at this point really make a full and reasonable argument in favor of that, at least not one that is logically consistent, and apparently neither can you.

What I fear most is that that puts those of us who'd like to support such concepts at an extreme disadvantage.

No wonder some people want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and put Fox News out of business...

Could it be that none of us, to the left of center can make reasonable, consistent arguments to support our positions and thus must resort to attempting to "shut up" those we disagree with?

If that's the case, I'm afraid JMK is right, that I'll probably become more and more conservative as I get older. Besides, I wouldn't support "shutting up" the JMK's, or the Fox News' or the conservative radio talkers of this world, any more than I would support "shutting up" my own brother...and BlueWind there are an awful lot of Americans in my boat - people with family members they may disagree with on occasion, but love and respect.

I guess I feel like, "If we can't win the battle of ideas, than we deserve to lose, plain and simple.

I think that you feel differently ("never surrender")...you seem to have the passion, you just seem to lack the means to make a compelling and reasonable argument - one that would make compassionate people say, "Yes, that's what I believe too."

Believe me, I'm not faulting you, you're far from alone. In fact, I've found very few fellow Liberals who've been able to make reasonable and compelling arguments.

That depresses me.

I do not want to go point by point with Barry's analysis. I don't think I've ever been extremely upset by just the Plame disclosure and really just watched it as it unfolded. I do, however, believe it is a bit disingenous to call Scooter Libby a "bit player" in the Bush Administration as he had a long standing relationship with the Vice President and actively participated in the Iraq War policy in both talking to the Press as well as working on speeches such as the one Powell gave to the UN just prior to the war. Also, I am skeptical of the contention that he lied because he was stupid. Rather, I believe the most likely scenario is that Libby lied because he felt he could get away with it, especially given that his lying started before Fitzgerald became the special prosecutor.

There are some that do suffer from BDS as any visit to the Democratic Underground (assuming it hasn't changed since I last visited years back) will show. However, the term BDS is often used against anyone who is a critic of Bush policy or isn't fully appreciative of the achievements as defined by Bush supporters.

In the leadup to the war, anyone who thought the war was unwise was told that the only reason that they could hold such views is because they hated Bush. Similarly, if today I put forth that the economy of the late 1990s was a better economy for the average wage earner than the current economy, I would be told by some that the only possible explanation for my belief is a state of delusion brought on by BDS.

Barry seems to dislike the policies of Michael Bloomberg.. why isn't this also called "BDS"? Mal constanly criticizes the Major Mass Media.. so why isn't this "MMMDS"?

In any case, I do not believe that the conviction of Libby for lying repeatedly to prosecutors and to a grand jury is a small matter. Also, just because the Bush administration didn't do anything that ulitmately was directly criminally prosecutable in the disclosure of Plame's status, does not mean that they did not do anything wrong. I understand that I have defended hypocrisy in other cases, but I do believe that it was telling that the administration was blabber mouths in this case while they were outraged over the disclosure of unclassified information in other cases.

I understand that there are no perfect alternatives among the current contenders for President, but to me that is besides the point. I would like to think that if any President was about to engage in a foolish war that I would question that war. Similarly, just because nearly every President has engaged in some kind of abuse of power does not mean that I have to condone such abuses.

If I had to cite one Bush achievement, I guess I would say the War in Afghanistan but even that is starting to unravel. On the negative side is a costly and continuing mess in Iraq, as well as a prescription plan that is overly costly as well. In both of these cases, I feel that we will be paying for years to come. (And sorry.. I don't view tax cuts as an achievement because if one increases the spending burden.. then that will have to be paid for down the line.)

So am I deranged? Well, you can say so, but thanks but no thanks to your offering Charles Krauthammer to be my therapist so I might get the official conservative diagnosis.

Don't be depressed Susan.

Conservatives are a lot happier.

I don't revile people like Steve Jobs or Donald Trump, or others who've "done very well for themselves." I KNOW that their success is what "expands the economic pie" and creates more prosperity for everyone else.

I'm free from envy, I'm hard to anger (though when the first thing I saw on TV after 9/11 was an anti-American ANSWER Rally in D.C., well that got me pretty angry) and appreciative of the good things I've been blessed with - a wonderful wife, a great home, a job I've loved doing and good health, because I KNOW that (1) NONE of those things was ever promised me and (2) No one, no God or government "owed" anything to me.

In its most basic form freedom means, "You get what you get."

If I come down with cancer and die six months from now, or I get hit by a truck tomorrow, that's the way it is - "I got what I got." If you live til ninety in good health then that too, is just the way it is, "YOU get what you get."

The fact is that any one of us could be walking around with cancer right now....or some defective genes that will end our lives abruptly, just up ahead.

There's no telling and there's no reason whatsoever to seek to "equalize such things."

Likewise, there's no reason to try and equalize people monetarily, and those who do, are almost ALWAYS motivated by shear envy of others.

There are no two people who are 100% equal. We're all born with different abilities, different personalities, with differing traits and into different environs, with different challenges and opportunities and....yup, "We all get what we get."

I guess what I'm saying is that Conservatives and economic Libertarians are happier than Liberals probably in large measure because they accept such things, so I could wish nothing better for you than for you to become more Conservative as you get older.

I get the distinct impression that BW is a very young person, like yourself, but I believe, and this is just my belief, that you're already much more mature than BW is.

Girls mature faster than boys generally, so that's no knock on anyone, nor should it be controversial for me to say that.

BW, doesn't understand why we NEED to be consistent in our views. Most fifteen year olds don't worry about consistency either.

But those who argue in favor of a protective government, one that would seek to equalize incomes and micromanage our lives for optimum "health and welfare" also MUST realize that such a government must also be able to be far more intrusive in rooting out scammers (ie. people using multiple IDs to get "more than their share,"), as well as being far more intrusive in protecting our safety and security (crime and terrorism).

Now I'd prefer as little government intervention as is possible - one of the few interventions I accept and recognize as vital are those Constitutionally enumerated police powers. The others are embodied in our courts/criminal justice system, our military and intelligence systems, etc.

I think you're a fair-minded person, just as Rachel, Paul, K and Bob, most of the rest of us are partisan to one ideology or another, and that's probably why you actually struggle with things, seeking out something you can fully agree with.

That's a good thing.

I also will say the following. While I don't have confidence that the "surge" is enough to effectively "clear, hold, and build" Iraq, I would prefer if the Democrats in the Congress tried to work with the administration to give the surge a reasonable chance to succeed.

That said, I blame both the Administration and the Congress for the posturing that is going on right now. True statesmanship would result Congress giving the new leadership (Gates and Petraeus) a chance but also the President giving Congress a role in determining whether the policy is effective and whether it needs to be changed.

I don't believe that Congress can micro manage a war. I do believe, however, that they have a role in macro decisions such as troop levels in an ongoing conflict.

“There are some that do suffer from BDS as any visit to the Democratic Underground (assuming it hasn't changed since I last visited years back) will show. However, the term BDS is often used against anyone who is a critic of Bush policy or isn't fully appreciative of the achievements as defined by Bush supporters.” (PE)


Considering that Barry CAN’T be considered a “Bush supporter” by any stretch of the imagination, I believe he used BDS correctly PE. That’s a fair term to define those who believe that “everything bad is Bush’s fault.” On the border issue, Bush has been terrible and has had stood against the collective will of over 80% of Americans who want “security first,” they want illicit employers fined and those illicit jobs, that lure illegal migrants here dried up. Bush has been a champion of the “Open Border” crowd, to which BW belongs and yet, those folks don’t acknowledge Bush’s border stance being closer theirs. WHY? It can only be BDS.


“I understand that I have defended hypocrisy in other cases, but I do believe that it was telling that the administration was blabber mouths in this case while they were outraged over the disclosure of unclassified information in other cases. (PE)


The NSA wiretaps were indeed classified, so too was the Swift Program that some news organs chose to print, in order, apparently, to make sure the enemies of America (the adherents of Sharia-based Islam) were well informed. While I find it regrettable that Richard Armitage “outed” Valerie Plame, there was no evidence that she held covert status at the time, which is why Dick Armitage was granted immunity by Fitzgerald.


“If I had to cite one Bush achievement, I guess I would say the War in Afghanistan but even that is starting to unravel. On the negative side is a costly and continuing mess in Iraq, as well as a prescription plan that is overly costly as well. In both of these cases, I feel that we will be paying for years to come. (And sorry.. I don't view tax cuts as an achievement because if one increases the spending burden.. then that will have to be paid for down the line.) (PE)


Our war is with all the adherents of Sharia-based Islam around the world, but that’s for another day.

The toppling of BOTH Saddam Hussein and the Afghan Taliban were vital, as well as right and just first steps in what will almost certainly be a very, very long, costly and bloody global war.

The post-Saddam reconstruction of Iraq has been badly bungled, THAT, aside from the border debacle, are the two major disasters of the Bush administration.

The prescription drug boondoggle was and remains terrible, but like the border issue (if you revile G W Bush’s border stance, then you’ll really hate the Democratic one), same goes for the prescription drug program (the Democrats fought for an even broader and far more expensive one).

The tax cuts are responsible for cutting the deficit by MORE than half (now down to $204 Billion) in four years! Tax revenues INCREASED every year since the tax cuts. They’re also responsible for creating some 8.8 Million new job s since 2003 and that’s despite the HUGE drag that comes from the Sarb-Ox legislation that was needed to clear up the scandals that flourished in the late 1990s and exploded in the summer of 2001.

In fact, despite inheriting a horrific Tech Bubble Bust, that imploded the NASDAQ, dragged down the Dow and was exacerbated first by the raft of business scandals and then by the attacks of 9/11, it’s amazing that we’ve had nearly a 100 straight months of economic growth and a current economy with low interest rates, a very low inflation rate and a near record unemployment rate, rising productivity, tax revenues AND personal incomes, along with a Dow that has gone from a recession low 7700 to a record high 14000 earlier this week. There’s officially no way to argue against Supply-Side policies and tax cuts...to paraphrase Nixon, We are all Supply-Siders now.

WTF?! A wrong number;

"...it’s amazing that we’ve had nearly a 100 straight months of economic growth..."

SHOULD BE

"In fact, despite inheriting a horrific Tech Bubble Bust, that imploded the NASDAQ, dragged down the Dow and was exacerbated first by the raft of business scandals and then by the attacks of 9/11, it’s amazing that we’ve had nearly a 60 (56) straight months of economic growth..."

"I don't believe that Congress can micro manage a war. I do believe, however, that they have a role in macro decisions such as troop levels in an ongoing conflict." (PE)


That's certainly a reasonable viewpoint.

Ultimately, I believe that this administration will be most faulted for failing to properly define the enemy and defend the need for the military WoT.

I believe Iraq is doomed because the people there neither support nor much want "Western democracy."

Sadly, while U.S. troops in Iraq battle al-Qaida, we the people have lost patience with a project that seems to costly (in lives and dollars), too vague and too little appreciated by the intended beneficiaries.

I initially liked the idea of deposing Hussein and dividing Iraq up, the way Yugoslavia was divvied up after Tito's fall.

I think some people saw a chance for a stable, pro-American Iraq serving as a major base for our further efforts in that region. Apparently they were far too optimistic.

I think the surge has until the Fall and then you'll see, short of an unexpected and unprecedented success or astounding progress, a phased pull-out over 2008.

JMK, we have had this discussion before. Tax revenues stagnated in the early years of the Bush administration and have since recovered, but tax revenues always go up - even during many recessions - due to an economy that is nearly always expanding in dollar terms due to an expanding population, if nothing else. Similarly, the deficit has come back down after it had increased in the early years of the Bush administration.

There are some tax cuts I do support, but I will argue against some tax cuts. It is also your opinion that the tax cuts are responsible for the economy bouncing back as it has. I won't deny that tax cuts may have been part of the reason, but economies do also naturally overheat during the high times which leads to slowdowns that are often followed by resurgence.

"Even your argument to prove the 'ridiculousness" of his arguments,the one about JMK saying that "BDS leads people to make false claims like 'Bush banned embryonic stem cell research,' " is, well, sloppy."

Susan,
No, it is not sloppy at all. It is simply the truth. Bush has not directly banned embryonic stem cell research, but he has has effectively blocked it by indirect means (blocking federal funding). Think about it. How can you do (serious and independent) research without funding? It is simply not feasible. So the people who use the world "banned", although technically wrong, they are closer to the truth than the JMKs. JMK thinks and operates like Fox News. They completely disrespect the truth and consistently distort the facts in ways that are far too obvious.

Also, just for the record, Barry had in the past a post in which he declared that he "officially regretted voting for Bush" the day after Bush vetoed the bill for federal funding for stem cell research. I am wondering whether Barry himself has a very mild form of undetected BDS :)

Wait!

I believe once again that Susan has it right!

She didn't say she agreed with Bush's position (I'm none too fond of it either) BUT, she's honest...and she's right that those who've claimed there is a BAN, have been guilty of misusing words....and "misleading people."

I think that was her only argument so far as that goes.

I don't know if you're aware of this BW, or merely overlooking it in order to try and make a point, but the greatest promise has been shown to be in the use of ASCs (adult stem cells), "In Germany, a cancer victim whose jaw had been removed re—grew bone tissue utilizing adult stem—cells from his own bone marrow, and was able to eat a bratwurst sandwich for the first time in nine years. Patients with Parkinson's disease have reported significant improvement, some even regaining their sense of taste and smell, with injections of GDNF, an adult stem cell related therapy."

Moreover, there HAS been funding available for ESC research;

"In 2004 Senator Jon Corzine donated $100,000 to help pass Proposition 71 in California, which would force Californians to borrow $3 billion over 10 years to help biotech companies to conduct mass experiments on embryonic stem cells. This dwarfs the few million dollars that the infamous New Jersey Governor James McGreevy prodded its legislature to throw to biotech companies for embryonic stem cell research and cloning.

"However, the private sector has refused to invest in this type of research because it is unlikely to provide useful products any time soon. Jim Kelly, a Colorado stem—cell activist who is a paraplegic, agrees with private venture capitalists and says, 'We have to use our limited resources efficiently. Money spent on embryonic stem cell research and human cloning is money that cannot be spent on (investigating) adult stem cells.' "

http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/09/the_truth_about_stem_cell_rese.html

Is Jim Kelly (a stem cell research activist and paraplegic) wrong in advocating that the bulk of the research funding go to adult stem cell research?

If so why....and what do you suppose his motivations are?

"Barry had in the past a post in which he declared that he "officially regretted voting for Bush" the day after Bush vetoed the bill for federal funding for stem cell research." (BW)


I won't put words in Barry's mouth BW, BUT saying one "regrets voting for Bush," does not imply that he "wished he'd voted for the Democratic alternative," does it?

I mean there are other alternatives - Libertarian, for one. I could easily see LIbertarian people of conscience voting Libertarian instead of voting for the likes of G W Bush or W J Clinton.

Sadly, NEITHER major Party advances Libertarian ideals very much.

"So the people who use the world "banned", although technically wrong, they are closer to the truth than the JMKs." (BW)


Can't you see the fallacy there, BW?

How can people who deliberately misuse a word "ban," when there is NO "ban" be "closer to the truth than I, who said "It's NOT a ban, merely a moratorium on federal research monies.?"

The short answer is, they aren't "closer to the truth," in fact, it is those people who've misused words and deliberately misled others.

>
JMK thinks and operates like Fox News. They completely disrespect the truth and consistently distort the facts in ways that are far too obvious." (BW)


Come on, isn't that kind of funny, considering the fact that you just lauded those who've deliberately misused a word "BAN," in order to skew a debate, by misleading casual readers/listners?

As Susan might say, "I don't think you're being fair."

I don't believe that Congress can micro manage a war. I do believe, however, that they have a role in macro decisions such as troop levels in an ongoing conflict.

i like that response, PE. I agree that too much posturing between the Administration and Congress has led both sides to subterranean poll levels.

What I don't get is why do the Dems (and some Reps) believe a phased pullout is best and promoting it? I want my soldiers home, but To me the only reason why they are doing this is for votes in 2008. Don't they realize that it will still be a problem in 2009? They wont be able to blame W, he'll be back in Crawford. Any complaint about what he left behind will be seen as whining, since they are in charge. And something tells me that either a) the troops will not be home at election time or b) they will, just to be called back in Feb 2009

I believe the Dems dropped the ball on the surge. Politically it would have been a gold mine - they have been saying "listen to the generals" - finally W has and even the BBC is saying the surge is having an affect and giving up would be disastrous to give up as it is improving. Dems should have been saying "told ya' so, W. If you listened to the generals, LIKE WE TOLD YOU TO IN THE FIRST PLACE, we could have saved billions of dollars and thousands of lives."
Then the Dems could have the pro Iraq image (notice how I did not say pro war), and more likely be looked at more favoritively by conservatives and moderates - people they need voting for them.

Maybe I should be the Dem strategist ;) they need someone new.

"JMK, we have had this discussion before. Tax revenues stagnated in the early years of the Bush administration and have since recovered, but tax revenues always go up - even during many recessions - due to an economy that is nearly always expanding in dollar terms due to an expanding population, if nothing else. Similarly, the deficit has come back down after it had increased in the early years of the Bush administration." (PE)


But the economic impact of such policies isn't immediate PE!

You know that!

I mean that would be like claiming that the Clinton administration's policy responsibilities for the Tech Bubble Bust ran out in Janauray 2001.

The entire recession that followed was a result of those policies and that Tech Bubble Bust.

Just as, say the sub-prime mortgage market pulls down the Hedge Funds, then the major mortgage lenders, then the housing market and spins us into a deep recession that starts in earnest in December of 2008, and doesn't end until April of 2010.

Isn't ALL of that Bush's recession?

Isn't all of that due to bad policies made during the current administration?

Or would you argue that the "Bush recession" was only through January of 2009 and the rest was whomever gets into the WH next?

I'd say ALL of it was "the Bush recession."

Wouldn't you at least agree that the Keynesian policies begun in earnest by LBJ, assiduously followed by Nixon, Ford & Carter resulted in the STAGFLATION we experienced in the late 1970s? ("The worst economy since the Great Depression")

Since then, there hasn't been another Keynesian in the WH and we've had over a quarter century of Supply-Side inspired growth and prosperity. So much so, that recently Germany and France elected more "Americanist" leaders who've promised fundamental economic changes, modeling much of their policy views on our economy.

All G W Bush has done economically is to follow the Supply-Side playbook and he kept Alan Greenspan on until he left and then replaced him with the like minded Ben Bernanke.

That's not lauding Bush as "an economic genius," just a guy with sense enough to maintain a good thing.

""In Germany, a cancer victim whose jaw had been removed re—grew bone tissue utilizing adult stem—cells from his own bone marrow, and was able to eat a bratwurst sandwich for the first time in nine years. Patients with Parkinson's disease have reported significant improvement, some even regaining their sense of taste and smell, with injections of GDNF, an adult stem cell related therapy."

JMK,
Where did you find that? Why did n't you provide a link or reference? That statement shows how disinformation can make people believe absolutely non existing things. I am not going to enter a debate with you on stem cells, as it is obvious that you do not understand or do not want to understand the issue. But here is an article that describes the case your are referring too. Read carefully and you will find this:

"Tests have not been done to verify whether the bone was created by the blank-slate stem cells"

but that did not stop whomever wrote what you posted to present this case as an example of "adult stem cell success". The quote you posted there is a classic example of misinformation.

"I believe the Dems dropped the ball on the surge. Politically it would have been a gold mine - they have been saying "listen to the generals" - finally W has and even the BBC is saying the surge is having an affect and giving up would be disastrous to give up as it is improving. Dems should have been saying "told ya' so, W. If you listened to the generals, LIKE WE TOLD YOU TO IN THE FIRST PLACE, we could have saved billions of dollars and thousands of lives."

"Then the Dems could have the pro Iraq image (notice how I did not say pro war), and more likely be looked at more favoritively by conservatives and moderates - people they need voting for them.

"Maybe I should be the Dem strategist ;) they need someone new." (Rachel)


Yes, perhaps you should be.

It would certainly be an improvement.

You "get it," Rachel. You understand the threat. Many don't and many more don't want to even look at things that way.

Both Parties are responding to what they see as a "war weary country."

It seems as though neither can envision the boiling wrath of a country lied to ("There is no terrorist threat") and horrifically attacked again.

The Bush administration has been as guilty of inane political correctness as the Dems. They've failed to define our real enemy (the adherants of Sharia-based Islam) for fear of inciting a backlash and they've failed to defend the NEED for a military WoT.

This threat isn't going to go away by us ignoring it. It'll have to be confronted.

I DID post a link BW....I always do.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/09/the_truth_about_stem_cell_rese.html

And since there were no ESC used, it's far more likely that "the bone was created by" ASC, rather than by say, spontaneous regeneration.

I don't think Mary L. Davenport, M.D. engaged in "classic misinformation."

I mean, even YOU don't believe that the jaw bone, in question, was created by spontaneous regeneration.....do you?

And what of Jim Kelly, a Colorado stem—cell activist who is a paraplegic, agrees with private venture capitalists and says, 'We have to use our limited resources efficiently. Money spent on embryonic stem cell research and human cloning is money that cannot be spent on (investigating) adult stem cells.' "

Is he guilty of "classic misinformation too?

If so, why?

Merely because you disagree with that viewpoint?

All I'm asking is that you give a reason for disagreeing....OK, and another for claiming that people engaged in stem cell research are "engaging in deliberate/classic misinformation."

JMK,
Look at the date of the original article. It was 2004. What happened since then? Did they confirm it? If so, why do we even still talk about embryonic stem cells? Think about it.

There are many people that for religious or whatever other reasons want to believe that ASC will solve the problem. The person in that site that you link is apparently one of them. But if you look carefully, in her site she also discusses the Schiavo case, and argues for guess what on that case? Go and read it. Although she is a doctor, she is not a stem cell expert. She has no scientific publications on the subject. All stem cell experts and scientists agree that embryonic stem cell research is extremely important and provides the best hope for the future. That's why a large group of Nobel price winners endorsed Kerry right before the 2004 election. Do you know of any Nobel price winner who endorsed Bush and his stem cell research policies?

By the way, and just for the record, the magazine where that article was published (American Thinker) is a far-right publication. Here is the front page . Nothing to do with science.

JMK, many factors go into how healthy an economy is at any one time. If you want to talk about the stagflation economy of the 1970s, you have to factor in, for example, the effect of the oil embargo and the rise of OPEC.

In any case, I personally don't accept as fact that total tax revenues collected from 2001-2007 are more than they would be if there were no tax cuts. While there have been documented instances where lowered tax rates led to increased revenue due to increased activity or compliance, the "dynamic" effects of tax cuts are often overstated, in my view.

I believe it's an established fact that income tax rate cuts, and for that matter lower Cap Gains tax rates INCREASE revenues from those streams respectively PE.

In regards to the income tax, that's because higher income people (especially those earning $150,000/year and up, those with significantly more disposable income) defer more of their income when tax rates increase and take more of their income upfront when tax rates are lower.

There is absolutely no way to raise income tax rates and INCREASE tax revenues, because there's no way to get those people to stop deferring compensation as tax rates rise. Moreover, when Democrats pass tax hikes, Republicans can always be counted on to add additional loopholes into the system and to increase the amount of income that can be deferred, just as Democrats can be counted to try and increase spending when Republicans pass tax cuts.

I think that's a GOOD thing for America (higher income earners keeping more of the income they earn, under any circumstances)....it's inevitable that any system rooted in private property rights and economic liberty will result in wide disparities in income. That disparity creates what we call "the investor class."

For that reason, among others, I believe that such wide disparities in income (some would call that "the concentration of income" at the top tier...I belive that's a mischaracterization) are not only inevitable, but the sign of a healthy economy.

As an economic Libertarian, I feel Supply-Side policies are far too tepid.

I support tax cuts to the point where they actually REDUCE government revenues and thus force government to "do more with less."

More or higher government revenues generally means "more government mischief," from my perspective.

Sadly, that is, at this point, a minority viewpoint, but so is the viewpoint that "higher tax revenues are good."

Right now, Supply-Side policies rule the day...and rightly so.

Actually BW, since 2004, there's only been MORE evidence that ESC are not really necessary. "Harvard scientists have created cells similar to human embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos, a major step toward someday possibly defusing the central objection to stem cell research."(http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2005/08/22/harvard_scientists_advance_cell_work/)

I'm a realist BW. While I'm NOT religious at all and I DON'T believe in the "sanctity of life" - I support the death penalty for murder, repeat pedophiles and, of course, violent, even deadly self-defense - I'm aware that mine (ours) is a minority view in that regard.

I also realize that the 60 million fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians in this country aren't going anywhere, nor are any of the two or three million Orthodox Jews, not to mention the practicing Muslims (who may not be "here for the long haul")...and I accept the fact that they must all be included in the debate.

That's the pesky thing about that "democracy" you're always prattling on about.

I have to convince those people that....well, that this "sanctity of life" stuff is really no big deal. OR, they must convince me that it is.

Believe me, that's a fairly daunting task on either side.

Interestingly enough, YOU'D seem to relish merely marginalizing and ignoring all those people, which of course, is quite impossible, given that about 80% of Americans are at least "somewhat religious."

Just as those who'd advance a more Libertarian agenda - LESS government intervention and lower taxes, have to make the case for that, those of us (like you & I) who DON'T believe in the "sanctity of life" have to make the case for that, just as those who'd advance the case for a more, shall we say, "Swedish-styled" parental government must make the case for THAT.

That last one faces the largest uphill battle - all but impossible, under the best of conditions, and current conditions in America are far from the best for that.

I'm sure you get the idea.

Basically it's that "democracy of any kind, especially the democracy of competing ideas is very tricky and often quite messy as well."

"By the way, and just for the record, the magazine where that article was published (American Thinker) is a far-right publication." (BW)


EVERY source today is either Liberal or Conservative - National Review and the Washington Times are Conservative (not "Far Right") while The Nation and the NY Times are Liberal. Those are opposed to outright "hate sites" in my view, sites like MoveON, D-Kos and the Soros funded Media Matters.

But still, what does the magazine, or its outlook have to do with Mary L Davenport (OB-GYN)?

Or Jim Kelly, the paraplegic stem cell activist from Colorado?

If I took that tack (negating any and all "far-Left sources), I'd have never read the NY Times article that documented Saddam Hussein's strategy of "Deterrence by Doubt." I looked over that articles sources and accepted that it had validity, despite Pinchy Salzberger's far Left predilictions and his encouraging "editorializing in news stories."

The worst that opponents of Conservative sources (be it Limbaugh, FoxNews, National Review, Frontpage Magazine etc) is that "they disagree with them," or "don't like their style."

So far as I know (and I look for such things) there's never been a Conservative Jayson Blair or Walter Duranty.

I don't think there's ever been a single "NY Times-styled scandal" involving the "despised" (by the Left) FoxNews. That's why I always find such forced outrage over "Conservative sources" to be...interesting, considering the huge disparity in, how can I best put this, "offenses against the truth," on the part of Liberal sources.

Hey Barry,
I did not see you respond to my suggestion that you may also suffer from some form of BDS :)

Want some proof that you may in fact suffer from BDS? Here is what you wrote in a post recently:

"I'm really starting to believe the whole Bush family are some leftist plants to destroy the Republican Party."

If that is not BDS, what is BDS ? :)

I think Barry is resting up this weekend in a state where he can buy guns and eat transfat.

ooo ooo ooo...don't bring up that visual again :P (I'm still reeling from Barry's original description)

"The worst that opponents of Conservative sources (be it Limbaugh, FoxNews, National Review, Frontpage Magazine etc) is that 'they disagree with them,' or 'don't like their style.'"

AHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAA! Wooo! That's the best line EVER, JMK!

Every day these people are proven to be cynical, America-hating, pathological liars hoping for the rise of the Fourth Reich.

No, their "style" has nothing to do with it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL1919223520070719

This is what our troops are dying for ... a bunch of animals.

”Every day these people” (Limbaugh, FoxNews, etc) “are proven to be cynical, America-hating, pathological liars hoping for the rise of the Fourth Reich.

”No, their "style" has nothing to do with it.” (Barely Hanging)


Actually, I’ve been trying to find real examples of lies from one of these sources (Bill O’Reilly) for years now and have been offered a substantial sum of money for any verifiable lies I can find. I also vet out some of the claims of “Media Matters” to that source, as they don’t want to embarrass themselves by coming forward with a “lie” that ultimately isn’t an actual “lie.”

As I’ve said, to me, Bill O’Reilly is a moderate-Liberal (slightly Left of center) pundit who (1) opposes the death penalty in all cases (I support an expanded death penalty (ie. for repeat pedophiles). I have even, in the past, argued for the death penalty for car thieves, on the grounds that “Our Founding Fathers hung horse thieves,” so their intentions are clear on that matter.” For the record, I haven’t made that last particular argument in years...perhaps I’ve softened a bit....(2) O'Reilly believes that U.S. based Energy Companies are “price gouging,” and that “U.S. energy companies should sell oil for the price it costs them to take it out of the ground (appx $20/barrel), at least during wartime.” On that score, O’Reilly couldn’t be more wrong. American energy companies MUST sell oil and gasoline at the world market price or risk losing profits in a highly competitive market and ultimately being bought out by foreign oil producers, like Shell (the Dutch) and BP (British).

The problem with catching someone like O’Reilly in an actual “lie,” is that he, like all those mentioned, is a COMMENTATOR, who actually comments on political, economic and world events, politics.

His disagreeing with me over the death penalty and so-called “price gouging” does not make those views of his “lies.”

Likewise, while his views on the border are more mainstream, he rightly asserts that 82% of Americans support an ”enforcement first,” policy and want illicit employers fined, so that the illicit jobs that draw illegal migrant workers here dry up, is right on all counts, I've been looking for mis-statements of fact, so far, to no avail. Same with his crusade to get “Jessica’s Law” passed (mandating specific sentences for pedophiles), as that too, is a more mainstream view than his more Left-of-center ones on the death penalty, “price gouging and global warming, but I haven't been able to find any actual mangling of the actual facts by this guy.

I've found an endless number by Media Matters, a group that is so sloppy in their attempts to portray opinions as "mis-statements of fact," that they've often bordered very close to libel.

On the other hand the number of actual “atrocities against the truth” by organs like the NY Times and the AP are legion! Worse still, is that they are all well documented.

The NY Times jumped on the Duke LAX band wagon and wrote about the story as an example of racism, sexism and classism among “privileged white atheletes, when less than ten days after the charges were filed (1) the accuser’s story changed more tha half a dozen times, (2) DNA evidence failed to implicate ANY of the three men accused and two came up with almost ironclad allibis and (3) law enforcement authorities notified that NY Times that their version of the events was based on information that was, "at best, unsound.”

The AP has used numerous actual jihadists as “sources” for their war correspondence in both Iraq and Afghanistan and during Lebanon’s attacks on Israel, they let the notorious “Green Helmet” (a Hammas operative) stage photos of “Israel atrocities on innocent Lebanese civilians.”

The NY Times used photos taken by jihadists, some taken while other jihadists, with those pro-terror photographers fired on U.S. troops.

Suffice to say, these “atrocities against the truth” by the MSM are too many to mention.

Recently Ace at AoSHQ highlighted this article highlighting another among many more examples of MSM violations of journalistic integrity;

MSM: "Staunch Republican" Decides He Cannot Vote For GOP Any Longer; Alas, This GOP Diehard Donated 90% To Democrats Since 1994

—Ace

“Jennifer Hunter, columnist for the Chicago Sun Times, knows the sorts of stories her employers want. 1) War protesters are all very normal Middle-Americans with no history of previous political agitation and in fact are all patriotic grandmas who are lifelong Republicans, and 2) lifelong Republicans are forced by conscience to disown the GOP.

“She offers up Story Type 2 here.

“So what if the guy's actually a very partisan, and generous, liberal? What's important is the meta-narrative, the Greater Truth that the GOP sucks balls.

“On July 16, Ms. Hunter wrote a column which began: "After watching the top five Democratic candidates for president speak before a trial lawyers' group Sunday, attorney Jim Ronca of Philadelphia, a staunch Republican, became certain of one thing: He is not going to vote for a Republican in the 2008 presidential election."

“A suspicious reader checked out Mr. Ronca's political contributions. Mr. Ronca had made 14 since 1994 - 12 to Democrats. The Democratic candidates received $7,000; the GOP candidates $750.”

So much for “Jim Ronca, staunch Republican.”

ORIGINAL Article: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/two_tales_of_journalistic_dish.html

I know, I know, how dare those paranoid Right-wingers actually go and vet stories like that, showing them to be complete shams?

Still, it really puts things into a much clearer perspective, doesn’t it?

Bill O'Reilly doesn't lie??? LOL!

Do you want video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QihDAhrEWgE

Text:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2988

More lies, lies, lies:
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/billspins.htm

More and more and more and more and more LIES!
http://www.nndb.com/people/434/000022368/

"I understand working-class Americans" is one of O'Reilly's recurring lines. "I'm as lower-middle-class as they come". His father, he says, "never earned more than $35,000 a year in his life". In reality, while the O'Reillys were not rich, the father was a fairly well-paid oil company executive, and $35k then would be roughly $100,000 a year today. The O'Reilly kids went to private schools, and O'Reilly's father paid his tuition to a private college.

"I'll tell you what. I've been in combat. I've seen it, I've been close to it... and if my unit is danger, and I've got a captured guy, and the guy knows where the enemy is, and I'm looking him in the eye, the guy better tell me. That's all I'm gonna tell you. The guy better tell me. If it's life or death, he's going first." Speaking metaphorically, of course -- O'Reilly was never in the military.

Registered as a Republican until 2001. He had claimed to be an independent, until the New York Daily News determined from voting registration records that he was not. After this, O'Reilly re-registered without party affiliation.

None of those sites you bring up are even minimally reputable – O’Reillysucks.com?! Keith Olbermann?! Ironically enough, Olbermann has, on a number of occasions, fabricated quotes to attack others on. I can’t use him either.

I’ve seen scores of quotes like the one’s you posted (all from such sites) and it’s impossible to find any actual transcripts that vet those quotes out. All of them turn out to be partial quotes (usually leaving off various qualifiers, etc), hyphenated quotes (snippets of one sentence melded with another) or outright misquotes. These tactics are dangerously close to inviting litigation – more on that later.

Suffice to say, one tiny phrase at the beginning of a statement, for instance, “Walk me through this, I’m a soldier, I've been in combat. I've seen it, I've been close to it...and if my unit is danger, and I've got a captured guy, and the guy knows where the enemy is...” and that online quote turns out to be completely unusable because of those four missing words that serve as an introduction to the “quote” posted online.

The only and, in fact, first man to publicly challenge O'Reilly's “working class upbringing” was Michael Kinsley (the avowed Marxist and original co-host of CNN's Crossfire, before becoming an Editor at the LA Times)...Kinsley, erroneously claimed that O'Reilly did not grow up in working class Levittown and had come from a "privileged background."

Turns out O’Reilly’s father was an accountant for a small oil company named Caltex. In 1951, his family moved to Levittown on Long Island. After graduating from Chaminade High School, a private Catholic boys high school in Mineola in 1967, O'Reilly attended Marist College, a small, co-educational private (and at the time, Catholic) institution in Poughkeepsie. While at Marist, O'Reilly on the National Club Football Association, and was also a columnist and feature writer for the school's newspaper.

There’s nothing that indicates that O’Reilly’s early life was anything other than working class. For instance, my father was a fireman. I went to Mssg. Farrell HS, a private Catholic boys high school on Staten Island whose tuition was pretty much the same as Chaminade’s. Levittown is indeed as working class an area as is good old Staten Island.

The problem with quotes that leave any part of a larger message out, as, for instance in the example I gave above, is that they can be actionable. That is, even as a public figure, someone like an O’Reilly COULD bring suit over such misrepresentations. It is generally believed that as a public figure, the courts would tend to look unfavorably on such suits, but I know that a number of attorneys have advised O’Reilly and others who’ve been targeted that way to institute civil suits regardless, the way many large companies institute “Slap Suits” to bankrupt the various activists and advocacy groups that damage that company’s legitimate activities. The strategy is to force the accuser to hire lawyers and pay mounting legal Bills, so that even if the suit is eventually dismissed, it could run the accuser/defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. But some of these misquotes may indeed meet the legal burden, even for a public figure.

That’s because many legal advisors feel that in some of the more egregious cases, cases where a quote is so badly mangled, or misused that its intent appears malicious, those may well meet the high standard for slander/libel – the plaintiff (in this case an O’Reilly) would have to prove (1) the quote was misused, that it was either incomplete, or taken out of context, (2) misleading in its portrayal of what the commentator actually said and (3) malicious in intent. That third standard is universally acknowledged to be the most difficult burden to meet, as most feel that “you have to get inside someone else’s head” to do that, but in cases where quotes completely misrepresent what the commentator said, THAT obvious a misrepresentation may meet the burden of proof for “malicious intent.”

In fact, the contact person I deal with is an attorney and he’s viewed the online quotes that I’ve taken and compared to the transcripts and even he’s advised the producer of that program that they may very well have grounds for some legal action in many of those cases. I know that outlet was considering legal action awhile back (O’Reilly is said to have announced as much), but I have no idea where any of that stands right now.

As my contact said, “Those who misuse or mangle quotes from those they don’t like, in order to smear them, do those who really oppose such people a severe disservice.” He was referring to Media Matters when he said that and MM is indeed, one of the sloppiest and most egregious websites in regards to that practice.

If sued and the court ruled that the egregiousness of the misrepresentation met the burden of “malicious intent,” then you could not argue “I don’t watch O’Reilly’s program, but I saw this quote online and used it in good faith, so I'm not personally responsibe for its veracity.” That is NOT an acceptable legal defense. We are, each responsible for vetting quotes we use when disemminating them for public information.

As I said, O’Reilly’s a Liberal when it comes to the death penalty and he’s wrong on “U.S. based energy companies price gouging,” but I’ve scoured many, many quotes and compared them all to full transcripts from that program and not a single one has been usable, as the transcripts invariably show them to be virtually unrecognizable from what was said on-air.

JMK,
You are outdated. It is no longer cool to support far-right lunatics like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. No one cares about their bizzare views and opinions any longer, except that they make people laugh(especially O'Reilly). You are in a small minority in this country at this point. 75-80% of Americans disagree with you and your radical extreme far-right views.

Again BW, I haven't "supported" Bill O'Reilly.

As an immigrant friend of my grandfather's used to say,"Uhhh, you a notta reada so good-uh."

He was a great guy...and that was not "making fun" of him, or his accent.

As I said, a lawyer, actually a Conservative Democrat from Long Island, NY and a close friend of my cousin's, has been trying to get something "he can really use" on O'Reilly. It's part personal feud and part that he feels O'Reilly is keeping Conservative white ethnics, who were once the backbone of the Democratic Party in the Republican camp.

I don't know where he gets that, as I've told him on numerous occasions, "It's Liberalism that's kept white ethnics (especially white ethnic Catholics) from voting Democratic."

At any rate, he's a nice enough guy and a friend of the family to boot, so I've been game.

As a result I've taped hours and hours of O'Reilly's TV and radio shows and I've seen most of the sites that Barely or you could point to and like I said, even this guy, who has a personal axe to grind with O'Reilly has said, "Many of the mangled and misquotes found on those sites COULD be civilly actionable."

You can't leave off any qualifiers, or intros when quoting someone, for instance, if O'Reilly said, "While I'm against the death penalty, there are times when I'd support the death penalty for pedophiles and not lethal injection, the very prolonged and painful deaths, their acts warrant," it is civilly actionable to say "That O'Reilly said, 'I'd support the death penalty for pedophiles and not lethal injection, the very prolonged and painful death, their acts warrant.' " The fact that that snippet is in there does not shield that deliberate, egregious and obviously malicious misquote from civil action.

When a person misquotes another individually that egregiously and that maliciously the consensus is that that may well reach the level of proving "deliberate, malicious intent" and leave that poerson liable to substantial civil damages.

Like I said, I couldn't go back to the person I know without (1) having a damning quote from O'Reilly (not merely untrue, but damning), and (2) having vetted that quote via that program's own transcript - if the official transcript says one thing and the accuser another, the courts near universally side with the official transcript from the accused, as they're based on actual tapes.

My LI contact knows that malicious misrepresentations are illegal. The Kos Kids and the Media Matters morons apparently do not.

Funny story, I initially didn't realize that Media Matters was an ideological (anti-Conservative) hate site, so I sent copies of a few of their more glaring misquotes and highlighted the full remarks from the program's transcripts (the quotes in question, were as egregious as the example I used above) and I added, "This kind of blatant misrepresentation may be civilly actionable. Please be more careful, for your own sakes."

Their response was along the lines that they had it on "good authority" that it's not civilly actionable and even if it was, they didn't believe any of these people would take them to court. They accused me of "defending (deleted expletive) O'Reilly and added something like, if you're offended by those kinds of tactics, then don't read our site.

Whehter they realize it or not, they are open to civil litigation and the attorney's I know all seem to feel that that would be a wise course in some of the more egregious cases, as it wouldn't merely stand a real chance of winning damages for the accused, even if it didn't. it would cost the defendant in legal fees.

BW, you constantly link to a far Left hate site (the D-Kos), so I think your perspective is badly skewed. I'm a mere Conservative Democrat, myself. I oppose open borders (like some 80+% of Americans), I oppose race/gender quotas (again like nearly 80% of Americans), I support civil unions, but oppose gay Marriage (like at least 2/3s of Americans), I support limited government (less spending) and lower taxes (which again, I believe something like 75% of Americans support)...and, of course, I oppose any kind of Swedish-styled system where the government makes sure that income is more "equitably distributed" and makes sure ALL the people's basic needs are "taken care of" at taxpayer expense.

Now, on that last one, I don't know what percentage of Americans agree with me on that. I HOPE it's a huge majority, but I'm certain, at the least it's close to 60% minimum, otherwise we'd have had that established here.

In fact, NO ONE will ever propose such an anti-American system here, (anyone who'd support such an abomination is NOT an American in my view), because the truly wealthy control the campaign money every politician runs on!

Oddly enough, Schumer and Emmauel know that this is an overwhlmingly Conservative country. That's why they recruited solely Conservative Dems to run out West and down South in the last election, folks like Jon Tester, Jim Webb, Heath Schuler, and the Indiana delegation - the guys who undermined the Pelosi-Reid-Bush supported Amnesty Bill on illegal immigration.

Bill O'Reilly is a liar, and an idiot too. Listen to him for five minutes.

Much like liar joke dopehead Limbaugh and auto-liar Hannity.

They all shout people down or mute them, avoid debating anyone above moron boy Colmes like true cowards. They all never served in the military.

Chickenhawks, liars, corporatists, and fascists to a "man" if you can call them that.

Again, and I can see you're having aq problem with the concept, but your assertions/opinions aren't evidence or proofs.

I'll give you an example, On June 4th Bill O'Reilly lambasted the NY Times over burying the JFK terror plot that was busted the day before, putting it on pg 37.

I taped that show, but hadn't watched it, when a friend emailed me that your pal over at oreilly-sucks.com had posted a that he'd caught O'Reilly in a lie.

I was skeptical when I saw the name of the site, but checked it out and found this;

"6-5-07 -- Last night Bill O'Reilly devoted an entire segment to attacking the NY Times for not covering the arrests made in the JFK airport terrorist plot on the front page...

..."One problem there Billy, the New York Times did cover the JFK terror plot on the front page of its Sunday edition. You wouldn't know it from watching O'Reilly, who chose to show only the top half of the front page. "Now I'm not making this up," he told his viewers. "You see it. This is not the Colbert Report. This is The Factor and this is the fact."

"But his fact is a lie, and he was making it up, he literally made it up, here is what Billy had on the screen."

Well, I still had the Sunday NY Times of 6/3/07 when i saw that story and guess what?

The NY Times DID NOT cover the story on the front page, below the fold or anywhere else!

Except Bill O'Reilly DID make a technical error. The story was NOT on page A-37, but on A-30.

The folks at oreilly-sucks.com even had a NY Times front page pictured, but it's largely unreadable, though I wouldn't be surprised if they photo shopped the page A-30 article onto their online front page.

Ironically enough, they were all undermined by the old "Gray Lady" herself, when the NY Times acknowledged not putting the story on page one and justified/rationalized their reasons for doing so, shortly after this dust up.

Even other NYC newpapers noticed. The NY Post wrote a piece on that curious bit of journalism that went;

GRAY LADY, GRIM AGENDA

"June 5, 2007 -- Terror plot? What terror plot?
That's what The New York Times seems to be asking, even as most news outlets are giving front-page coverage to the recently foiled scheme to blow up JFK Airport's fuel pipeline.

"The paper's goal seems to be getting America to lower its guard - which can only lead to disaster.
The suspects were "Short on Cash / And a Long Way From Realizing Goals," one Times headline insisted yesterday. Regarding two of the men arrested, a second headline asserted that "Neither Seemed an Extremist."

Indeed, on Sunday the paper barely covered the arrests of three suspects behind the plot: Its main story appeared A-37 pages back. A second piece undermined the significance of that story: "Plot Was Unlikely To Work, Experts Say, Citing Safeguards and Pipeline Structure."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06052007/postopinion/editorials/gray_lady__grim_agenda_editorials_.htm

OK, they, like Limbaugh and O'Reilly had the page wrong (A-37), although that makes me wonder whether it was different pages in different editions.

But the radioequalizer got it right;

IT WAS ON PAGE A30

"After their assertion was refuted even by the New York Times itself, a nasty attack by liberal bloggers against conservative talk show hosts has backfired.

"After Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and other hosts lambasted the Sunday New York Times for burying news of the JFK terror plot bust, Think Progress, News Hounds and other lefties accused them of lying.

"By claiming the story actually was covered on page one and even asserting that O'Reilly intentionally misled viewers by showing only the top part of the page on camera, these smear sites were truly pulling a fast one.

"While Limbaugh said JFK terrorism plot coverage was found on page A30, O'Reilly says he found it on A37.

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2007/06/rush-limbaugh-bill-oreilly-jfk-terror.html

After seeing a number of egregious misrepresentations from these sites, I'm convinced they weren't just "pulling a fast one," as Brian Maloney said, but were engaged in something far more deliberate and malicious, and as I told the dolts over at MM, "very possibly civilly actionable."

To date I haven't found anything close to what I've been searching for - a verfiable lie by O'Reilly, that has some malicious overtones.

That story was my introduction to such "websites" and as I suspected, judging by many of their names, I expected very little and wasn't disappointed.

Believe me, I'd love it if I could find even ONE source on any such sites that wasn't itself a "lie," but I guess the same could be said if I had me a magical pony that shit diamonds.

I can't vouch for the veracity of any of the others you mention, but after taping hundreds of hours of O'Reilly's TV & radio programs and combing through them for SOMETHING along those lines, I've come up empty....as empty as those websites like oreilly-sucks.com.

And that leads me to believe that the same is probably pretty much true of Limbaugh and Hannity as well. They may seem "obnoxious shills" to those who aren't Conservative, BUT I'll bet they aren't liars either.

O'Reilly lies and lies and lies and lies and lies:

LIE #1

"The truth is this. Governor Blanco of Louisiana did not have a disaster plan in place."

Here is what the Governor wrote in her 8/27 letter to President George W. Bush requesting federal help:

"In response to the situation I have taken appropriate action under State law and directed the execution of the State Emergency Plan on August 26, 2005 in accordance with Section 501 (a) of the Stafford Act. "

LIE #2

"[She] did not have enough state police and national guard to secure a city the size of New Orleans ..."

In the same letter Governor Blanco wrote: ''

The following information is furnished on the nature and amount of State and local resources that have been or will be used to alleviate the conditions of this emergency:
. Department of Social Services (DSS): Opening (3) Special Need Shelters (SNS) and establishing (3) on Standby.
. Department of Health and Hospitals (DHH): Opening (3) Shelters and establishing (3) on Standby.
. Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (OHSEP): Providing generators and support staff for SNS and Public Shelters.
. Louisiana State Police (LSP): Providing support for the phased evacuation of the coastal areas.
. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (WLF): Supporting the evacuation of the affected population and preparing for Search and Rescue Missions.

LIE # 3

"...and did not push for federal help soon enough."

Hurricane Katrina hit on Monday, August 29th. Governor Blanco wrote to President Bush on Saturday, August 27th, when it became obvious that Katrina was going to require resources in excess of the state's ability to provide them.

"Dear Mr. President,
"Under the provisions of Section 501 (a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. �� 5121-5206 (Stafford Act), and implemented by 44 CFR � 206.35, I request that you declare an emergency for the State of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina for the time period beginning August 26, 2005, and continuing. The affected areas are all the southeastern parishes including the New Orleans Metropolitan area and the mid state Interstate I-49 corridor and northern parishes along the I-20 corridor that are accepting the thousands of citizens evacuating from the areas expecting to be flooded as a result of Hurricane Katrina.

"Pursuant to 44 CFR � 206.35, I have determined that this incident is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments, and that supplementary Federal assistance is necessary to save lives, protect property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a disaster. I am specifically requesting emergency protective measures, direct Federal Assistance, Individual and Household Program (IHP) assistance, Special Needs Program assistance, and debris removal.

"Preliminary estimates of the types and amount of emergency assistance needed under the Stafford Act, and emergency assistance from certain Federal agencies under other statutory authorities are tabulated in Enclosure A."

Lie #4

"President Bush was 24 hours too slow in reacting to the disaster. Why? I don't know."

Katrina occurred on Monday, August 29th. The federal troops showed up on Friday, September 2nd. Now, how does that add up to 24 hours? Do you suppose that Bill assumed that the time-stretching technique used on the FOX Entertainment show "24" applies in real life? Or is it that he knows his audience of Bush supporters - desperate to maintain their illusions about their beloved leader - will believe anything HE tells them, regardless of the facts.

O'Reilly then went on to disparage Michael Chertoff, saying he "seemed clueless for days."

He then went from lying to defamation.

"In another area, it didn't take long before the race-hustlers hit the ground. They would have you believe reaction was slow because most of those stranded were black." He excoriated Jimmy Breslin for writing in Newsday: 'If whites were in trouble in New Orleans, trust that his [Bush's] government would have been there early ...' That is despicable nonesense. Newsday should be embarrassed for printing that kind of garbage. And NBC was embarrassed when rapper Kanye West said this:

VIDEO CLIP of Kanye West, September 2nd: "The way America is set up to help the, the poor, the black people, the less well off as slow as possible (tape splice) they've given them permission to go down and shoot us (tape splice) George Bush doesn't care about black people.' End clip.

O'Reilly continued: "NBC censored those remarks on the west coast and the remarks are simply nutty. I mean. Come on. West is saying authorities want to shoot blacks? Doesn't get more irresponsible than that. But what do you expect from an ideologically driven newspaper industry and the world of rap where anything goes. .What do you expect"

[Aside: Last week Bill O'Reilly routinely referred to the people stranded in New Orleans as "thugs." He also called them the "urban menace" and made it seem that most of the people in New Orleans were looters, as they hauled away - gasp! - food, water and clothing. However, when a reporter described how some Mississippians backed a truck up to a Wal-Mart parking lot and filled it up, he called it "exploiting" rather than "looting."]

LIE #5

"Engineers knew for decades the levee system in Louisiana could not withstand a category 5 hurricane but nobody wanted to pony up the $20 million needed to fix it."

From an article by Sidney Blumenthal

A year ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed to study how New Orleans could be protected from a catastrophic hurricane, but the Bush administration ordered that the research not be undertaken. After a flood killed six people in 1995, Congress created the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, in which the Corps of Engineers strengthened and renovated levees and pumping stations. In early 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a report stating that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S., including a terrorist attack on New York City. But by 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Additional cuts at the beginning of this year (for a total reduction in funding of 44.2 percent since 2001) forced the New Orleans district of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze. The Senate had debated adding funds for fixing New Orleans' levees, but it was too late.
The New Orleans Times-Picayune, which before the hurricane published a series on the federal funding problem, and whose presses are now underwater, reported online: "No one can say they didn't see it coming ... Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation."

The Bush administration's policy of turning over wetlands to developers almost certainly also contributed to the heightened level of the storm surge. In 1990, a federal task force began restoring lost wetlands surrounding New Orleans. Every two miles of wetland between the Crescent City and the Gulf reduces a surge by half a foot. Bush had promised "no net loss" of wetlands, a policy launched by his father's administration and bolstered by President Clinton. But he reversed his approach in 2003, unleashing the developers. The Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency then announced they could no longer protect wetlands unless they were somehow related to interstate commerce.

And here's where I screamed at the TV set. O'Reilly continued FOX News' "blame the poor" campaign.

O'REILLY: "New Orleans is not about race. It's about class. If you're poor, you're powerless, not only in America, but everywhere on earth. If you don't have enough money to protect yourself from danger, danger's going to find you. And all the political gibberish in the world is not going to change that.

The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina should be taught in every American school. If you don't get educated, if you don't develop a skill, and force yourself to work hard, you're most likely be poor. And sooner or later, you'll be standing on a symbolic rooftop waiting for help.

Chances are that help will not be quick in coming."

And this is the guy who thinks Michael Chertoff is out of touch?

Gimme a break.

Even Newt Gingrich distanced himself from O'Reilly on some of this. although I suspect their "disagreement" was orchestrated by FNC's upper management. O'Reilly was allowed to go over the top to appeal to the truly rabid, narrow-minded viewer that forms the base of the Factor audience. Gingrich was set up to look "moderate" by comparison.

The O'Reilly lies about his lies!

On September 6th, I posted an report entitled "Desperate to Take the Heat Off Bush, O'Reilly Lies and Blames the Poor". Last night [9-8-05] Bill O'Reilly said this in his Talking Points Memo: "Feeling sorry for O'Reilly. That is the subject of this evening's Talking Points Memo."

He continued: "So I'm makin' a sympathy play here. Are you ready? Over the past ten days I've gotten an amazing amount of criticism from both the left and the right. The Kool-Aid people are goin' nuts. Feel bad for me, yet? I didn't think so!

"But it's interesting to demonstrate what a certain segment of America is like. The absolute bottom of the barrel are the crazy websites. One far-left blog says quote "Desperate to take the heat off Bush, O'Reilly blames the poor in Hurricane Katrina." This after my Talking Points saying the government can't protect you and you better have enough assets to protect yourself. If you'd like to read my entire position on the matter, my new column, just posted on BillOReilly.com deals with it."

Later after slapping the wrist of an unidentified conservative blog for calling him an "economic fool" because he wants to curb the oil companies and then tearing into a liberal writer from the LA Weekly, he said:

"This kind of nonsense is ideologically driven and appears all day, every day in this country. There are no standards anymore in the media. But the good news is,that folks are seeing through the propaganda and coming into venues the truth and deliver opinion backed up by fact. Once again The Factor and FOX News have dominated the hurricane coverage on cable and we appreciate you're making that happen. Of course, the Kool-Aid people are just beside themselves, but we continue to roll along. So, really, there isn't any sympathy needed."

COMMENT

Bill, you couldn't even get the title of my post correct.

Tsk, tsk.

I keep saying that research staff of yours ought to be fired for incompetence.

Well, Governor Blanco DID indeed bothch N.O. during Hurricane Katrina...and very badly, to boot.

The State of La. was responsible for the immediate evacuation plans (FEMA teams take from two to four days to arrive and set up their action plans) AND maintaining civil order. Blanco and Nagin allowed N.O. to be taken over by roving gangs of thugs, many of whom had to later be "put down" by National Guard troops that Blanco initially blocked, by refusing to cede control of the emergency over to the federal authorities.

I don't see any quotes to the contrary above from O'Reilly (that seems to cover "lies 1, 2, 3 & 4)....unless you're claiming I'm wrong too...but if I am, so's the NY Times, as they reported virtually everything I just said.

The Levees had been built to withstand a Cat-3 Hurricane. When they were built, they were state of the art. In the interim tens of millions of federal dollars went to the N.O. Development fund specifically for that purpose (upgrading the levees) and that money was spent on the purchase of a casino and other local pork-barrel projects - typical of the most blatantly corrupt state government in America.

Ergo the State of La. was responsib;e for the condition of the levees prior to Katrina NOT the feds...I think that's "bye bye "lie 5").

As to your second post, I hope you didn't take issue with the view that "the government can't protect you and you better have enough assets to protect yourself," because not only is that true, it's actually a public service announcement to all those dolts out there dumb enough to believe that one of the purposes of government is to pro-actively intervene on our behalves.

The government is by nature and by design a REACTIVE mechanism. The police don't stop individual crimes, they come in, after the fact, take statements, collect evidence and make arrests.

If you're mugged in NYC, you're shit out of luck - you get banged up and lose a few bucks and the cops arrive after it's all over to get statements, collect evidence and hopefully make an arrest.

YOU cannot sue NYC for "failing to protect you," as that's NOT the government's job and you're responsible for protecting yourself both in public and in your own home at all times.

I suppose socialists, especially national socialists would want to change that and make government responsible for such things....effectively making government the "owner" of its citizens and the people - slaves to the state.

I'm glad there aren't that many of you around Barely. I really am.

Well, you clearly lost that round. O'Reilly was clearly lying no less than five times on a single evening broadcast.

Um, you didn't actually say anything that explained away his clear lies, you simply posted subterfuge. All of the lie were clearly explained and still stand.

Let's discuss something on which we are agreed:

AP NewsBreak: Pa. Immigrant Law Voided

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290960,00.html

"Mayor Lou Barletta, chief proponent of the crackdown, contends illegal immigrants have brought drugs, crime and gangs to the city of more than 30,000, overwhelming police, schools and hospitals."

See? This good Republican is trying to do the right thing, unlike Bush. This is why I became a Republican, and the abandonment of this is why I started voting against them as Bush focused on expanding the government, governmental powers, and vastly enriching corporations and the top .1% at the expense of the middle class.

You posted five supposed "lies" on Katrina that turned out not to be lies at all.

Katrina was a failure all the way around, but the worst abuses, the worst incompetancy was to be found on the local level, N.O. (Nagin) and La. (Blanco). They were responsible for the primary evacuation plan, and for maintaining civil order, as the feds come in AFTER the fact.

As for support for Lou Barletta - I have to call BULLSHIT on you there.

The GOP has long been run by its Moderate/"Country Club" wing and that wing has ALWAYS supported the "cheap labor" argument in favor of illegal immigration.

It's ONLY the Conservatives that support Enforcement First.

The good news for Conservatives is that now, thanks to the last election, more than 20% of the Dems in Congress are "Blue Dog" Conservatives, who share many of the same views as Conservative Republicans - opposing illegal immigration, higher taxes and race/gender preferences, while supporting the H-1B Visa, the Patriot Act, etc.

I do find it ironic that you're now backing away from the "O'Reilly lied" argument since I proved that oreilly-sucks.com, thinkprogress and other Lefty bloggers devoted to O'Reilly's veracity LIED about their claims that "O'Reilly lied about the NY Times coverage of the JFK terror plot."

It turns out that the NY Times, by its own admission, didn't cover the JFK plot on "Page 1 below the fold," but on page A-30.

As I said, if those bloggers would lie about THAT, how can you take anything else they say seriously?

Ya can't!

Ok,
JMK you convinced me. O'Reilly is the 2nd most honest person in the country (after George W. Bush).

I'm not sure about that, BW, but I DID prove that many (if not all) of the sites devoted to proving "O'Reilly is a liar," well, to put it as diplomatically as possible, "LIE."

Isn't ironic that oreilly-sucks.com, thinkprogress.com, among others claimed that "O'Reilly lied by claiming the NY Times didn't cover the JFK Terror Plot on their front page," when even the NY Times acknowledged, in justifying why they felt that story wasn't worthy of their front page, that indeed the story appeared on page A-30 of that Sunday (6/3/07) edition?

Like I said, if they'd lie about something so blatant as THAT, how can they be trusted on anything else?

They can't be.

And the Kos-O'Reilly war seems to be heating up.

Sad, JMK.

O'Reilly lied about everything. He said she had no plan, didn't ask for help, nobody knew -- all lies. She did ask for help, there was a plan, and everyone knew about the levees.

O'Reilly lied. He just flat lied. Like you, he had to go hunting for a non-Republican scapegoat, because after all, Brownie was doing a heckuva job, right?

O'Reilly, like Hannity and Limbaugh, are partisan liars, shilling for their masters.

Here, stop lying yourself and read the whole story:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/05/oreilly-lies/

O'Reilly lied. Stop playing dumb, even though it seems so natural to you.

Here, check this out, is O'Reilly deceitful, a liar, or a retard ... take your pick!

Traditionalist, God-fearing, Roman Catholic Bill O'Reilly Ignorant of Own Religion

During one of his recent McCarthyite-style attacks against Jet Blue and the Daily Kos, O'Reilly listed several observer comments from the latter that supposedly constituted evidence that the Web site spews hate just like the Nazis. One of these comments (which O'Reilly falsely attributed to the site's author) said this: "Yes, the Pope is a primate."

O'Reilly led his viewers to believe the source of this quote was calling the Pope an ape or monkey. The truth is that the first meaning of "primate" in Webster's Ninth Dictionary is "a bishop who has precedence in a province, group of provinces, or a nation."

JMK lies about O'Reilly lying!

Okay, Class. Pop quiz time.

Take out a No. 2 pencil, put your books under your desks, and let's begin.

Who said the following?

"I've been in combat. I've seen it. I've been close to it. And if I'm... my unit is in danger, and I've got a captured guy, and the guy knows where the enemy is, and I'm looking him in the eye, the guy better tell me. That's all I'm gonna tell you. He better tell me. If it's life or death, he's going first."
Was the speaker:

[a] Colin Powell

[b] Donald Rumsfeld

[c] Tom Clancy

[d] My uncle Don, who as a soldier has been in the Army, the National Guard, and the Merchant Marines

Put your pencils down.

If you answered [a], [b], [c] or [d] you are wrong.

The correct answer is [e] : Bill O'Reilly.

No, really. . . Bill O'Reilly. Fox News Channel's nightly commentator Bill O'Reilly. AKA, Fox News Channel's nightly -- and STAR --

"Journalist."

That is a direct quote from O'Reilly speaking on his radio program "The Radio Factor."

Here is where JMK lies and says O'Reilly was not fully quoted, but taken out of context:
Suffice to say, one tiny phrase at the beginning of a statement, for instance, “Walk me through this, I’m a soldier, I've been in combat. I've seen it, I've been close to it...and if my unit is danger, and I've got a captured guy, and the guy knows where the enemy is...” and that online quote turns out to be completely unusable because of those four missing words that serve as an introduction to the “quote” posted online.

If you're thinking, "Huh? When the hell did Bill O'Reilly ever see combat?," that is exactly what the next caller to the show was wondering too:

O'Reilly: We've got a caller. Roger. Roger from Portland, Oregon. What say you Roger?

Roger: Yeah, hey, Bill. First things first. You just said you've been in combat, but you've never been in the military, have you?

O'Reilly: No I have not.
Roger: Then why do you say you've been in combat?

O'Reilly: Why do I say that, Roger? Because I was in the middle of a couple of firefights in South and Central America.

Roger: But you were a media guy.

O'Reilly: Yeah. A media guy with a pen, not a gun. And people were shooting at me, Roger.

Roger: People might think that you actually were in the military.

O'Reilly: Oh... We don't want to mislead anybody. But I made it quite clear... quite clear in many, many circumstances --

Roger: [mumbles something about being, or not being, "fair and balanced"]

O'Reilly: [quietly disconnects Roger] Yeah. Hey listen, Roger. You can take your little "fair and balanced" uh... snip remark and shove it, okay? You're not getting on this air. Um... You, mister macho man, have never come close to anything I've done, down where I've been. So take a walk and... uh... 'nuff said.

To appreciate the full extent of O'Reilly's tirade [keep in mind he may have been speaking to an actual soldier or veteran who has actually been in and seen combat] listen to the whole thing:

So, with the full transcript, we can see once again that JMK is nothing but an apologist and a liar, no better than the "shills" for whom he claims to hold little regard.

O'Reilly was in combat in South and Central America?? When was this, when he was hosting that hard news tv show "A Current Affair?" What was he doing down there, following the Prince or Madonna tours of the mid-1980s??

thinkprogress.org, like oreilly-sucks.com were among the Lefty blogs caught lying about "O'Reilly and the NY Times coverage of the JFK terror plot."

Both sites continue to link to apparently photoshopped NY Times front pages, claiming "O'Reilly lied when he said the NY Times didn't cover the JFK terror plot on page 1."

The NY Time acknowledged that it didn't put those busts on its front page because it didn't see that as aserious threat, therby making liars out of oreilly-sucks.com and thinkprogress.org

As I said, If they'd LIE about something so blatant as THAT (what the NY Times had on its Sunday, 6/3/07 front page), how can they be taken seriously on anything else?

"I've been in combat. I've seen it. I've been close to it. And if I'm... my unit is in danger, and "I've got a captured guy, and the guy knows where the enemy is, and I'm looking him in the eye, the guy better tell me. That's all I'm gonna tell you. He better tell me. If it's life or death, he's going first." (quote found on thinkprogress.org)


As I said, BH, those website's quotes (1) often differ starkly and substantially from the transcripts of the programs they allegedly quote and (2) have, in my experience left out, or changed some of the "quotes" they post.

Still, I don't see any "lie" here.

O'Reilly stated, that in some capacity, he'd "seen combat." In Iraq, embedded reporters, civilian contractor and mercenaries from companies like Blackwater have "seen combat" and "been killed in combat," despite the fact that none of those folks were in the military at that time.


The call you quote seems to make clear that O'Reilly didn't seek to mislead anyone.

Roger: Yeah, hey, Bill. First things first. You just said you've been in combat, but you've never been in the military, have you?

O'Reilly: No I have not.

Roger: Then why do you say you've been in combat?

O'Reilly: Why do I say that, Roger? Because I was in the middle of a couple of firefights in South and Central America.

Roger: But you were a media guy.

O'Reilly: Yeah. A media guy with a pen, not a gun. And people were shooting at me, Roger.

O'Reilly appears right that he "saw combat" as a war correspondent/reporter and was quick to admit that he was "never in the military." He did that in the very first line; Roger: "...but you've never been in the military, have you?"...O'Reilly: "No I have not."

Sorry, BH, but there's NO "lie" there, just as there was no lie in saying that N.O. had no evacuation plan (none was instituted during the disaster), nor did Gov. Blanco accept help, by ceding authority over to the feds as they requested, nor about La. spending tens of millions of federal dollars earmarked to improve those levees on pork-barrel programs, like buying a casino.

You are just another wingnut lying sack of shit, JMK.

If you really had the 6/3/07 NYT you would clearly see the that the story was headlined and began on THE FRONT PAGE but was continued on page 37, like all lengthy articles.

Since you have already seen the proof, and say it is "photoshopped", why don't you post your own scan of the 6/3/07 NYT front page?

Because you're a lying sack of shit, that's why.

Oh, or maybe it was page 30, so don't go crazy over another minute detail to try and draw attention away from your huge humiliating baldfaced lie.

There was absolutely no Front Page coverage of the JFK terror busts in the NY Times.

The NY Times DID not headline the JFK terror plot on its front page at all, so Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the NY Post, were right.

Even the NY Times editors rationalized the reason they didn't feel it was a "front page story."

As the impartial webiste Newsbusters noted; "Bizarrely enough, the terror plot in New York City to blow up airport terminals and fuel lines at Kennedy International Airport didn't make the front page -- or even the national news section -- of Sunday's New York Times. Instead, it received a front-page "tease" and topped the Times' Metro section of regional news. By contrast, the Washington Post put the story on the front page, and the Los Angeles Times made it Sunday's lead item.

The story by Cara Buckley and William Rashbaum went to some length to downplay the seriousness of the threat:

"Mark J. Mershon, the assistant director in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation field office in New York, said all four men had 'fundamentalist Islamic beliefs of a violent nature,' although they appeared to be acting on their own and had no known connection to Al Qaeda."

And I'd like you to retract your charge that O'Reilly lied, by implying some military experience. He said that he'd "been in combat, been close to it" and had "seen combat."

Most war correspondants have "been in," "been close to," and "seen combat," and asserting that does NOT imply military experience, merely "combat experience," which war correspondents, civilian contractors and mercenaries all experience OUTSIDE of military service.

As I said, the call you quoted seems to make clear that O'Reilly didn't seek to mislead anyone.

Roger: Yeah, hey, Bill. First things first. You just said you've been in combat, but you've never been in the military, have you?

O'Reilly: No I have not.

Roger: Then why do you say you've been in combat?

O'Reilly: Why do I say that, Roger? Because I was in the middle of a couple of firefights in South and Central America.

Roger: But you were a media guy.

O'Reilly: Yeah. A media guy with a pen, not a gun. And people were shooting at me, Roger.


O'Reilly can rightly assert that he'd "been in," "been close to" and "saw combat" as a war correspondent/reporter. Moreover, he was quick to admit that he was "never in the military." He did that in the very first line; Roger: "...but you've never been in the military, have you?"...O'Reilly: "No I have not."

Another "non-lie."

TWO charges of "lying" by you and BOTH are demonstrably false charges.

I'm just insisting that you be responsible and stop making scurilous charges that are deomstrably false. It's not only reckless and irresponsible (par for the course with you), but libelous in this case, as well, since they, like many of your comments, are so obviously rooted in malice.

"Instead, it received a front-page 'tease'"

LOL! So now you ADMIT it was on the front page, and teases DO have headlines, don't they? So it really was headlined on the front page, and continued on another page.

Thanks for admitting that you and O'Reilly are liars.

Nobody was shooting at O'Reilly, he just got caught in a whopping big lie and, like you, tried to use semantic arguments to somehow worm his way out of being an outright liar.

If it is any consolation, liar, Clinton did it first. Or do you think he was correct when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Did you defend Clinton? After all, he didn't have "sexual relations" because technically oral sex isn't really a form of copulation or intercourse at all, strictly speaking. So Clinton didn't lie, right? Lewinsky might have manipulated his member with her mouth and tongue, but he didn't have "sexual" relations with her, because there was no copulation involved.

I guess you were dead against Kennyboy Starr spending $65 million to publish his pornographic "report" designed only to humiliate and destroy everyone involved. You were outraged, weren't you? I mean, you did DEFEND Clinton right? You were against impeachment, right? After all, he didn't really lie, now did he?

So now you are a hypocrite as well as a liar. Hey, it isn't really you, just the people you listen to every day on the radio.

"Instead, it received a front-page 'tease'..." (newsbusters.com)


LOL! So now you ADMIT it was on the front page, and teases DO have headlines, don't they? So it really was headlined on the front page, and continued on another page. (anon - next time, sign your name Barely)


No, not at all. An actual "front page story" ALWAYS continues in the A-section. That's the media definition of a "front page story," because that's the newspapaer definition. Even the NY Times admitted that they "didn't put the JFK arrests on their front page," because they didn't view it as "a credible threat." Of course, the NY Times is no position to make such an assessment.

There was no NY Times "front page headline," even though both the WaPo & LA Times both featured it as their lead stories on Sunday, June 3rd, 2007...and there was no NY Times "front page story" either.

The NY Times acknowledged that in DEFENDING "Why we did not put the JFK arrests on our front page."


Both Newsbusters and the NY Post were right in proclaiming; "Bizarrely enough, the terror plot in New York City to blow up airport terminals and fuel lines at Kennedy International Airport didn't make the front page -- or even the national news section -- of Sunday's New York Times."

(newsbusters.com)


"Indeed, on Sunday the paper barely covered the arrests of three suspects behind the plot: Its main story appeared A-37 pages back." (NY Post)


And indeed I DID oppose the Clinton impeachment, as I opposed the media delving into Newt Gingrich's personal affairs. All leaders (corporate and political) are flawed (political leaders seem to be even more flawed than any others), in the case of great leaders like Abraham Lincoln, M L King and Newt Gingrich, sometimes their personal flaws are great, as well.

I've said many times that I supported our incursion into the Balkans (even though the Albanian Muslims were the FIRST to engage in genocide in that region) because it served a greater purpose - the Albanian Oil pipeline was/is vital AND I was very happy to see that Halliburton got every contract related to that conflict as well, as they did in the 1991 Gulf War and in the current conflicts.

P.S.

Just dropping the charge about O'Reilly "caught lying about being in the military" doesn't cut it!

Those who think "combat experience" = "military experience" probably should exclude themselves from any serious discussions on ANY matters. If you can't use words precisely, then you can't make a reasonable case for your position.

JMK the liar said:

"Well, I still had the Sunday NY Times of 6/3/07 when i saw that story and guess what?

The NY Times DID NOT cover the story on the front page, below the fold or anywhere else!"

Thanks for now admitted that the story was on the front page, with a headline, and completed on a separate page.

When you were lying before, you didn't mention anything about a headline and coverage on the front page that CONTINUED elsewhere, did you?

And don't use your crap wingnut sources like anyone takes them seriously. You might as well use Fox News as a source as to site some wingut idiots blog or some other shill organization like newsbusters.

I'm glad you don't think Clinton lied though -- it makes you consistent. Consistently retarded.

Clinton lied. He lied exactly the way you try to lie, like a worm, thinking that it all depends on how you define "is".

Everyone else sees it for what it is -- a simple lie.

Everyone knows that O'Reilly fancies himself a tough guy, and wanted to lead people to believe he had seen actual combat (no, not on television or in a movie).

He hasn't been shot at anymore than Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, Hannity, or any of the other chickenhawks have ever been shot at.

Remember, these were the people disparaging John Kerry's military service. John Kerry WAS shot at, even the Swift Boat Liars for Bush will admit that.

No, you're wrong.

The NY Times acknowedged the newsbuster's and the NY Post's charge that, ""Bizarrely enough, the terror plot in New York City to blow up airport terminals and fuel lines at Kennedy International Airport didn't make the front page -- or even the national news section -- of Sunday's New York Times."

I second that assertion by newsbusters and the NY Times acknowledged that charge is CORRECT by defending, "Why we did not put the JFK arrests on our front page."

Once again, only a moron believes "combat experience" =- "military experience."

Maybe O'Reilly IS a "tough guy."

I'd say a combat correspondant is probably pretty tough...as "tough" as any medic, as both are exposed to combat conditions without benefit of being armed.

As I noted, war correspondents, civilian contractors and various mercenaries ALL encounter "combat experience" OUTSIDE of military service.

That's a fact...and that fact, proves your assertion ("O'Reilly deliberately led people to believe he saw combat as a member of the military, when he clearly stated that he'd "been in" and "seen" combat...as a war correspondent.

You're frustrated again, because you've made more sloppy arguments that you can't back up.

I'm merely pointing out the obvious flaws in your assertions and trying to point out the primary obvious fact here - YOU have NOT been able to show that O'Reilly "lied."

As I said earlier. I've tried...apparently much harder and much more thoroughly than you have and I came up empty too...so I feel your pain.

I could've made some serious coin, instead I showed my contact what I've shown you - that none of these sites (thinkprogress OR oreilly-sucks) have anything close to "the goods."

Only difference is, my contact understood the facts - of course, he was an attorney....and you're, well you.

Clarification:

"That's a fact...and that fact, proves your assertion ("O'Reilly deliberately led people to believe he saw combat as a member of the military), when he clearly stated that he'd "been in" and "seen" combat...as a war correspondent."

SHOULD READ:

"That's a fact...and that fact, proves your assertion ("O'Reilly deliberately led people to believe he saw combat as a member of the military), wrong. In the exchange you posted, O'Reilly clearly stated that he'd "been in" and "seen" combat...as a war correspondent."

That's all you are left with, you poor boob -- semantic wormlike wriggling on the end of my hook.

We all know what "is" is. You were lying, and worse, you have compounded your lies with more sophistry and lies.

You pretended like no mention of all of the JFK story was on the front page of the NYT, but it was.

O'Reilly tried to lead people to believe he has seen combat (outside of GI Joe in his sandbox) but got called on it.

Sophistry and lies prove exactly who you really are: a fascist wingnut goose-stepping to every utterance of Bush the Lesser and his corporate puppetmasters.

You aren't a "Reagan Republican" or anything of the sort. You aren't a plain spoken man of true convictions. You are just a lying little weasel and a hypocrite, protected by a union and hoping for disability while spewing bullshit about the evils of the "Nanny State".

O'Reilly is only "tough" on the women he sexually harrasses.

Oh, as the final bullet in your puddin' head, here is a HIGH SCHOOL KID, completely owning your lying hero, watch the video!

http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/1457-boulder-high-student-jesse-lange-on-o-reilly-factor

The NY Times acknowledged that THEY DIDN'T cover the JFK busts as a "front page story."

There is a specific definition of "frontpage story" and they were called on that by the NY Post and other news organs.

We can only assume that the likes of O'Reilly and Limbaugh knew that definition as well...otherwise they would've been "LYING."

Since the NY Times acknowledged that it wasn't a "front page story" and went on to defend their NOT making that story a front page story, that made liars out of thinkprogess.org and oreilly-sucks.com. IF the NY Times had said "We DID make that a front page story below the fold," that would've at least thrown those websites a bone...but they didn't do that.

Which is why I've said from the start, "You can't trust anything those kinds of sloppily crafted websites post." Hey! In that regard, they have a lot in common with your typical BH or "Barely Hanging" post. Though I wonder if they've ever posted articles that prove their own arguments WRONG, as you so often do?

If either newsbusters or the NY Post was factually incorrect, when they said...

"Bizarrely enough, the terror plot in New York City to blow up airport terminals and fuel lines at Kennedy International Airport didn't make the front page -- or even the national news section -- of Sunday's New York Times."

http://newsbusters.org/node/13204

AND

"Indeed, on Sunday the paper barely covered the arrests of three suspects behind the plot: Its main story appeared A-37 pages back. A second piece undermined the significance of that story: "Plot Was Unlikely To Work, Experts Say, Citing Safeguards and Pipeline Structure."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06052007/postopinion/editorials/gray_lady__grim_agenda_editorials_.htm

...the NY Times COULD have and WOULD have demanded a retraction and threatened legal action, instead, as noted the NY Times acknowledged that the story wasn't a front page story in their Sunday edition and went on to defned why they felt it WASN'T a front page story.

That pretty much ends any debate over that, as even the NY Times itself conceded the point.

And that's what you should do as well (concede the point), just as you've already conceded on the "O'Reilly claimed military experience" claim.

See? That's how that works, if you can't defend your positions, it's often best to concede those points. Instead you link to sites (thinkprogress.org and oreilly-sucks.com) that even the NY Times has pulled the rug out from under?!

I earnestly sought actual, PROVABLE lies (for the spectre of profit) and I came up empty. I carefully explained to you, what I explained to others, that the examples YOU give (the JFK busts & the "O'Reilly claiming military experience) are LIES on the part of those making those charges, while most of the others are either misquotes or mangled quotes that border on the overtly malicious.

In other words, the websites you quote have been debunked by the program's transcripts and, at times, by their own sources (ie. the NY Times).

Why do you continue doing that to yourself. Have some self-respect.

"You are just a lying little weasel and a hypocrite, protected by a union and hoping for disability while spewing bullshit about the evils of the "Nanny State"." (BH)


I don't know where you get your information, or why you fail to understand things very well, but I've put 23 years on in the FDNY, almost 20 of them in the South Bronx (one in Harlem) and the last two-plus in a HazMat Unit.

I hope to do at least 25.

I am being monitored by Mt Sinai and by the FDNY's WTC programs for a lump on the left side of my throat that is not at this point malignant. Many, many of the guys I worked with earlier on have died from various cancers from pancreatic, to brain to germ cell cancer, some from heart damage and I know about a half dozen guys I've worked with who are currently stroke survivors. I know very few guys who've put more than two decades in the places I've worked who didn't get out or were forced out by various health issues.

It is entirely possible, even probable that I will not remain unscathed, but right now, aside from two knee surgeries and some resultant arthritis that, along with age, slows me down a little bit, I'm good and hope to remain that way.

I know your frustrated because you often find yourself unable to make credible arguments for what you believe. When that happens as often as it does to you, perhaps you need to rethink your views....or learn to make better factual cases for your views - H-1B Visas (addresses structural unemployment and the limits will be raised by the current Congress), the RICO Act (yes you must be CONVICTED, in order for assetts to be confiscated), Cell Phone Privacy (currently being litigated, but cell phones DON'T have the privacy protections that landlines do), and te list goes on.

Maybe you should re-think your positions.

According to yourself, your health problems are your own problem to solve, not mine. You shouldn't depend on the Nanny State (my tax money) to take care of you. You were lucky to be protected in a high paying union job while the rest of us had to compete and get trashed in Reagan's Corporate America with no union protection.

Why should taxpayers support you? You are willing to let others be axed and die without health care because they didn't have union protection and a cushy deal like yours, and had their benefits cashed in to provide hundred million dollar bonuses to the executives.

Why do you just stop whining and walk the walk?

I realize that you are feeling pretty sorry for yourself since you have just be thrashed again, as your hero O'Reilly is caught lying in every form of media, with links provided, that RICO is being abused, that the Patriot Act is being abused, that illegal warrantless wiretapping was being abused and was forced back under court supervision, that the H1-B program is being abused, taking jobs from Americans, lowering pay, and devastating our future by forcing college kids out of Computer Science, giving away the future to India.

Anyway, like you said, you chose to be a firefighter. You took that risk. Now you need to go on the dole and have lots and lots of money from high taxes imposed by evil Democrats keep you safe and secure.

You were well paid, and you, a rugged individualist, chose the life and risks of fighting fires. Don't be a hypocrite now and start sucking at the Big Taxation teat just because you might die.

Hold yourself to your own standard and follow through on your no taxation Corporatist beliefs. Do what those who aren't protected by a union would do, like in the movie Sicko, and just DIE.

"According to yourself, your health problems are your own problem to solve, not mine. You shouldn't depend on the Nanny State (my tax money) to take care of you." (BH)


Don't complain, do something about it! Look to end ALL pensions and ALL employer paid healthcare benefits for ALL public service employees - including teachers, public defenders, social workers, etc.

You're aware, I HOPE (and if you're not, I'll apprise you of it now) that we in the Emergency Services (Police & Fire) tend to look down on the....uh....how can I put this(?)....oh yeah...the "less strenuous" Municipal services (ie. teachers, various clerks, social workers, public defenders, ADAs, etc.).

So, to be fair, any such movement must seek to eliminate pensions and healthcare from ALL such employees. That's only fair.

In places like NY, NJ, Conn (actually, throughout most of the northeast) the Municipal Employees Unions are robbing you...the taxpayer.

OK, considering that just over 85% of all Americans are covered by their employers (a number accounting for almost all but p/t, per diem and "off the books" workers), I suppose it could be argued that the "American employee" is, in general, robbing their fellow Americans at every turn.

So, what do I say, in that capacity (as a Municipal Employee)?

Well, uh...THANKS, but once I retire I'm looking to points South &/or West.

I'm a pragmatist - I saw an oppotunity (the Fire Dept) and saw the benefits - healthcare and pension, and took advantage of it. I've given them good value for their money, but would I have endorsed all the things that Cities and States like NY have given their Municipal workforce?

Not very likely, but, I'm not about to turn them down. Like I said, "Thanks!"


Hey! This really IS a refreshing change of pace from your arguing things that are demonstrably false, like "O'Reilly lied about having military experience," or "O'Reilly lied about the NY Times not covering the JFK terror busts with a front page story," or "RICO allows the government to confiscate our assets prior to conviction," or "H-1B Visas exploded under G W Bush."

On this you're absolutely right, the local governments, especially in places like the northeast have been extremely generous with the people's pottage (tax money)....I actually agree with you on that!

Again, your failure to understand human nature, as it is, is simply staggering. Folks like myself are not going to be shamed by people like yourself. Actually, in my case, I have no shame and to be frank, I have an entirely different "moral code" than the Judeo-Christian one most Americans share. I'll take everything I can get from an overly generous system and then fault them for giving it.

That's an American tradition, now different from people enjoying the free speech rights America protects and using them to bash America....I revile that, but I accept it. You revile a fellow Municipal Employee (you said you were a school marm) bashing the system for being "too generous" and too bloated with excess employees....I guess you have to accept that, in the same spirit that I accept reckless and irresponsible hatemongers absuing their free speech rights.

In the end, it all sort of evens out.

"OK, considering that just over 85% of all Americans are covered by their employers (a number accounting for almost all but p/t, per diem and "off the books" workers), I suppose it could be argued that the "American employee" is, in general, robbing their fellow Americans at every turn." (JMK)


Well, actually, as I think about that, that's not really true, as healthcare and pension benefits, etc., are ALL part of any worker's compensation package.

Yes, ALL those things are offered in lieu of pay.

That's made very clear in most places as you can take home substantially more money if you're either covered under a spouse's health benefits package, or, for whatever reason, have your own.

In fact, I put my wife under my benefits plan and she takes home over $600/month more for not taking the company offered health benefits.

So, I'll correct myself on THAT point, that benefits, like every other part of one's compensation package are between the employer and the employee.

What an employer offers an employee isn't "robbing anyone else," BUT the very generous (overall) compensation packages offered by Municipalities, like the City of NY, certainly DO weigh heavy on the beleagured taxpayer.

What I'd suggest is forcing all those agencies to do more with less.

The notorious John T. O'Hagan, a Fire Commissioner (who'd raised himself up through the FDNY's ranks to become the youngest Chief of Dept) back in the mid-seventies said, "I could do this job with 5,000 men!"

At the time the City was nearing the end of what was called its "fire storm," in which 1/3 of NYC's residential housing burned down (btwn 1968 - 1978)....the FDNY had appx. 12,000 members at the time.

Likewise, when I was a kid ONE, single, solitary Nun kept a class of 58 kids in order and learning (of course, she did it at the end of a pointer), so there's really no need for a teacher and two teacher's aides handling 28 kids in a typical NYC classroom!.....Is there?

If we upped class size to just forty, we'd cut teacher staffing by nearly 1/3 and if we assigned only a single teacher's aide, we'd cut the aides staffing by half!

You know, with a little tweaking and a little "doing more with less," the city could save a fortune!

You're just a union protected, on the dole, Nanny State communist living on the dole.

You have no position from which to call yourself a conservative, or even a man.

You are nothing but a little girl who has to be supported by real men, like me, who start businesses and pay more taxes than the Corporatists you worship, who hide everything overseas.

You are really just another dependent, like my little daughter.

You can be a hypocrite, a liar, and an ingrate as well, but the truth is that you are part of the problem, and you aren't man enough to live up to your own words.

You're an empty shell, a bubblehead, a transparent wisp of nothingness ... just like your heroes.

I've never opposed Unions.

In fact I've been honest that Unions or worker Associations (like the PBA, UFA & AMA) are needed, while also being honest that Unions have many times in the recent past over-stepped their bounds - pattern-bargaining shut down nearly a dozen newspapers in NYC alone, in the 1960s, costing thousands of jobs - that was the fault of the Unions.

PATCO (a public service Union, like the Police & Fire Unions) went on strike in 1981, resulting in Reagan firing the Air Traffic controllers. PATCO was an easy target at the time, since the membership earned appx $100K/yr at a time when the teachers, cops, electricians, plumbers, firefighters, etc., were earning about $30K/yr, engendering little sympathy for PATCO.

The FDNY had earlier declared an illegal strike, lasting 6 hours, under the later despised UFA

...(premature posting)

...head Rich Vinzinni (whom, it turned out, didn't have the votes for the 1973 strike when he declared one), setting up the most famous UFA meeting, when Mickey Maye (a former boxer) strode across the stage, lifted the much smaller Vinzinni off his feet and hurled him off the stage.

Shortly afterwards, Maye was elected UFA President, but that didn't stave off the massive layoffs of 1975 - in which Mayor Beame spared the NYPD, as much as possible, and pounded the FDNY....and for good reason.

The Union movement has done SOME good things for workers and some BAD over the course of its existence. It's not only good to recognize that, but foolish not to.

As for government, there's absolutely NOTHING GOOD that's been done by the seat belt mandating, bike helmet mandating, granolla munching, food banning "Nanny State," although the Guiliani-styled "Daddy State" that's been tough on crime, increased the use of surveillance cameras, and ratcheted up other security measures has been a God-send, especially in the midst of the current jihadist threat.

Moreover, there's nothing hypocritical about a cop, firefighter, Municipal judge, or career Military member wanting government to do MORE with LESS.

In fact, if that were true (that they'd be hypocritical for holding those views), indeed, America would be a very different place - we WOULD "All be Keynesians now." Well, at least, the the Liberal, Keynesians would hold a formidable majority, that's for sure.

But America is NOT that kind of place...THANKFULLY.

In fact, many in those professions (the vast majority of cops, firefighters, military people, etc) tend to be economic Libertarians (low tax, less government spending, etc), while being largely socially Conservative - including supporting the Safety & Security-based Daddy State," because they see it as both (1) needed by the country and (2) peripherally benefitting themselves.

I not only have a right to hold to those views, but I make credible, logical arguments in favor of those views, that frustrate folks like yourself (who can't) no end.

Again, I'm not trying to frustrate you, merely to offer enlightenment, where I can.

I worked two jobs for most of my career in the FDNY and before. I started and ran a deck-building business for over a dozen years and hired four crews, at its height and learned, doing that, what ANYONE who's actually started and run any business LEARNS....and those are part and parcel of my overall views - the views that I've defended here.

The fact that you haven't learned those lessons, proves that either (A) you've never started and run a business or (B) are an incredibly incompetent businessman.

In the three firehouses in which I've worked, there was one lone Liberal (like you, "Liberal" when it benefitted him and not so Liberal (ie race/gender preferences) when it did not)....still, he was routinely shouted down and occasionally bullied in discussions by some of the more loutish guys around...and he seemed to love that.

Back in 1994 he'd openly declare that he supported Mario Cuomo for Governor of NY and would always get tons of grief for that....he seemed to revel in that.

I spoke to Billy more than a few times, and he was a good guy and all, but he didn't think for himself even a little bit - got almost all his views from the Evening News (MSM) and the NY Times (two very impeachable sources)...and as we spoke, he too would always wind up very frustrated for not being able to back up his views with any logical arguments.

One day, Billy turned to me and said, "Some day, you'll see most of these guys and the cops and other slike them walked out of here and sent to re-education, to change their views around."

I said, "Billy, that would be the day we'd cease being a free country, an odd thing to wish for (Billy always claimed to support things like "freedom," "democracy" and "free speech"), besides, we're right now, at the beginning of a Conservative, anti-Keynesian revolution, one that swept the Keynesian Democrats like Carter and his ilk out of office and put the likes of Reagan and all those Southern and Western Republicans in office."

I was surprised by Billy's saying that, and it made me realize that a lot of people just don't understand what "freedom and Liberty" really are.

Of course, there is some good news, in that I saw Billy about a year ago, and Billy's turned out to be BIG on Safety & Security issues and loves the emphasis on domestic 1st Responders (he sees it as benefitting himself) and admitted that he's "come around" on a lot of economic issues...so that's a good thing.

It shows the capacity for illogical Liberals to change...and that means there's hope for the likes of you and BW.

Unions are babysitters and handholders for incompetents AND people who should know better. Once necessary, now an anachronism, as evidenced by the shrp decline in union membership since 1980.

Well, Fred, I'd disagree to this extent, Unions have been a very "mixed bag."

Initially, there's no question that Unions did some very good things for workers, improving work conditions (guaranteeing overtime beyond the 40 hour week in most cases and pushing for outlawing child labor, etc.), but just because THOSE problems are passed, doesn't mean that either "Unions have done their jobs and outlived their usefulness," Or "Are no longer needed."

During the fifties and sixties many Unions cozy relationship with organized crime and the heavy communist influence did a lot of harm to the Labor Movement.

The U.S. economy has been shifting steadily away from its 19th Century "factory model" to a more "Information-based" economy allowing far more people to do all kinds of work from home.

But even in an information based economy we'll still need some "factory" or "workplace workers" - workers in the shipping business, from mail carriers to FedEx and UPS guys to Couriers of all sorts, as well as private sanitation, financial services and environmental clean-up businesses...and the government will almost certainly have to maintain a court system (with a centralized workplace), probably a "factory-styled" school system (though the internet and learning DVDs could and probably SHOULD change education for the better and make the "factory-styled school obsolete), as well as various Emergency Services, some Health and Social Services, etc.

The key is maintaining, or in some instances, restoring some sense of balance. While all those workers (from Couriers to Cops) need some representation and protection, they shouldn't be allowed to grow so powerful (as they have in NYC) where the "finance reform" laws are written around them, so as to exclude Municipal Unions from being barred from lobbying City and State government on their behalf, while their employers (both local Municipalities and private companies alike) are not allowed to lobby government in the same way.

There have no doubt been many abuses by Labor over the past thirty or forty years and Municipal Labor Unions have been among the biggest abusers. In fact, since 1993 and the advent of the Giuliani administration, followed by the Bloomberg administration, one thing they've done is to hold down those expenses, at least somewhat, though Bloomberg hasn't been as fiscally prudent as Giuliani.

As a result Long Island (Suffolk & Nassau) have significantly higher pay for cops and teachers. Suffolk County cops earn something like 20% to 25% more than their NYC counterparts. The same is true for many Upstate communities and NJ locales. Many surrounding school districts and paid Fire Depts. have significantly higher salaries AND benefits packages (in Bayonne, NJ, as well as a number other Municipalities in the region, firefighters can retire after 25 years with 2/3s of their salaray, as opposed to NYC's half pay at twenty!
- thus the incredibly high property taxes in places like LI, NJ and Upstate NY.

Throughout the northeast (and eslewhere), the Municipal Labor Unions have been able to run roughshod over local governments at taxpayer expense.

No doubt cops, teachers, etc should be well compensated, but to say that many Municipalities have been extremely generous, is being kind.

You don't frustrate me one bit, JMK.

You are a liar, and a hypocrite, an ingrate, and probably the most laughable boob I have ever flattened on the internet.

Your latest babble is so contradictory and convoluted that I just have to laugh.

The CONSERVATIVE coddled union worker trying to retire early on disability, preaching to the LIBERAL entrepreneur who makes jobs and pays the majority of the taxes YOU live off of ... LOL!

This is priceless.

Barely, it's obvious that I frustrate you.

I have it on good authority (someone who says she knows you), someone who claims you're "generally a sweet, easy-going guy."

WoW!! That's a pretty nice rep...and I have no problem believing that.

To boot, you didn't come to this site with any preconceived anger over Barry's or anyone else's views. You initially discussed issues without rancor or personal animus.

It seems that my arguments have gotten under your skin, which was/is NOT my intention. In fact, I think, what's frustrated you is your own inability to make a case for most of the things you claim to believe.

You claimed H-1B Visas exploded under G W Bush and even the chart you posted proved that wrong.

You claimed RICO "allows government to confiscate assetts prior to conviction," and again, posted an article that contradicted that erroneous claim.

Here, in this comments thread, you claimed that "O'Reilly LIED," (1) on claiming the NY Times did not cover the JFK terror arrests with a front page story (The NY Times acknowledged it wasn't a front page story and defended their decision over that) and (2) "on O'Reilly's claiming or insinuating some non-existant military experience (again, the transcript of the exchange you posted shows otherwise).

OK, you were wrong on ALL those things, but that is not "flattening" you, Barely.

On the internet, I believe that "flattening" is a specific term (I may be wrong about that, I could be thinking of another f-term) that requires that the "flattened party, recognize their errors and come to re-allign his/her thinking in light of new information." I hold little hope, and no expectation that you'll be so sensible as that, any time soon.

And YOU...an "entrepreneur?"

You claimed you were a teacher (OK, you've claimed to be a "Conservative" too)...after your tech support job was outsourced to...India, wasn't it? I didn't believe IT pro coming from you either...you don't show any sign of that. I've never met a techie (my brother Chris brought home loads of them) who was unable to make logical arguments for their views. You can't do that, so I don't believe you've ever been a tech.

And you're certainly no businessman, no "entrepreneur," that's for sure! I started and ran a deck-building business for twelve years and I know many other contractors and guys who've ran and run their own businesses and you're NOT one. I can tell just by the way you think.

Being entrepreneurial and holding to the "entitlement ethic" that you do, are entirely mutually exclusive.

EVERY single, solitary businessman I've ever known KNOWS that the key to running a successful business is getting your commodities (components, shipping, labor, etc) as cheaply as possible and selling their product competitively and at the best price they can get....THAT'S absolutely fundamental.

Anyone who doesn't understand that, doesn't understand business - and YOU don't understand that at all.

Remember your outrage over "labor as a commodity?"

Yeah, yet another bit of that now infamous Barely Hangin's misunderstanding even the most basic facts.

"You are a liar, and a hypocrite, an ingrate.." (BH)


Well, that's an odd thing to say.

"Ingrate?" I've expressed gratitude many, many times here and elsewhere. I've had a real enjoyable life! A great wife, a wonderful family, two houses...a job I love and a boat-load of great memories from nearly two decades fighting fires in the South Bronx.

I've been blessed! Life is GOOD!!! I've said that numerous times....so much for that.

"Liar?" You've backed away (wisely) from two absurd examples of "O'Reilly lied." That WAS what this discussion was originally about....until you decided to retreat from those claims and change the topic.

Remember?

You claimed that O'Reilly lied about the NY Times NOT making the JFK terror arrests a front page story - AGAIN, the NY Times acknowledged THAT they did NOT see that story as front page worthy!

And O'Reilly claimed or insinuated military experience he didn't have?

Remember that?

Turns out the transcript of the exchange that YOU yourself posted (thanks, yet again) showed that O'Reilly claimed "combat experience" - and yes, Red Cross Medics and Nurses, civilian contractors and war correspondents (which O'Reilly was) all can, and often do encounter actual "combat experience."

Oh yeah, and remember your insisting, despite a mountain of evidence I provided to the contrary that "RICO allows the government to confiscate assetts prior to conviction?"

Isn't it bad form to call someone else a "liar," when you yourself are, well...being less than truthful??? Besides, you haven't shown me to have actually "lied" even once.

And "hypocrite?" Over what? Over working for a Municipal agency and espousing fiscal discipline, streamlined government, less spending and lower taxes?

I'm sorry, but I don't see any "hypocrisy" there. How are ANY of those things bad? And why is it that you seem to feel that I don't have the right to espouse such things? Seriously, I don't get the connection.

I mean if people like myself don't point out and oppose government waste, double billing and excess, who will?

In a sense your view amounts to "Shhhh, just let the abuses roll on and continue. It's nobody's business anyway, especially not the taxpayers." I disagree with that viewpoint, and I don't think that's being "hypocritical."

Then again, maybe that word means something different to you than it does to everyone else?

I proved emphatically, in every form of media, that O'Reilly is a liar, and caught you in several lies defending him.

I also documented the many abuses of RICO, warrantless wiretaps with no oversight, the Patriot Act, and H1B visas while you played with the definition of "is" like Clinton. In the end, you support these anti-American, fascist and corporatist policies, like a true brownshirt.

You have lived off of my tax money your whole like. That makes you my little girl.

Hell JMK, it's OK. I'm man enough to take care of you too. You can be my little girl. Don't worry about a thing, daddy has you covered.

Barely, you abandoned ALL your O'Reilly charges (and wisely, I might add) - as I showed you that O'Reilly was right about the NY Times "JFK terror plot coverage" (the NY Times acknowledged that), I showed that your charge that he "insinuated military experience," was also bogus, as he claimed "combat experience" (he NEVER claimed "military experience," and he WAS indeed a war correspondent)...so THOSE charges were demonstrable falsehoods that you culled from two disreputable websites.

And your Katrina charges were the same...I showed you why.

You were also WRONG on RICO, wrong on H-1Bs, and you don't understand the issues surrounding the Patriot Act nor the NSA program. You don't even understand what you read, that's why you so often post articles and charts that prove your own presumptions wrong.

Funny story, we had a recruiting slogan a few years back, when NYC was looking to hire more cops and firefighters, it went "YOU are my job."

It was withdrawn because the City got a slew of complaints from people who saw that as saying that those services profit at the expense of other citizen's misfortunes, which of course, was NOT the intent of that of that ad.

The actual intent is that YOUR safety and security is MY job...and I take that seriously, we all do around here. If and when you're ever in NYC, Barely, I'm honored to consider YOU to be MY job.

Email me and I'll send you the address of the firehouse I work out of. Maybe you could stop by and "daddy up," OR just say "Hi," OR "thanks," or whatever.

Whaddaya say?

I say you wear pigtails and sit on daddy's lap like a nice little girl and let me take care of you -- oh wait, I'm already doing that.

JMK, I'm afraid the joke is on you. I trolled you and dragged you down to my level, and now nobody respects your opinions. You have lost credibility, because your methods and endless subversions of the truth have been exposed.

Notice how nobody gives a shit about our "debates"? We just go on uninterupted and ignored by the adults here.

So, post away with your novel-length lies and distortions and half-truths.

Nobody is listening.

C'ya fool.

These have been (relatively) private discussions for a long time, but I enjoy correcting your misunderstandings - H1-Bs, RICO, the erroneous examples of the "O'Reilly lies," etc.

You're not "lying" Barely, you simply don't understand those issues.

What's worse is that you're dogmatic in your views, you think your opinions are facts. That's why you "think" others are "lying" when they disagree with you.

“I trolled you and dragged you down to my level, and now nobody respects your opinions...your methods and endless subversions of the truth have been exposed.” (BH)


Whoa! I hadn’t seen this.

I am guilty of discussing (OK, mostly correcting you) things with you, while most people won’t, BUT I’ve never come to or even been near your level – a level of ad hominum attack, personal insult and profanity. In fact, I’ve used NONE of those in this entire comments thread. The day I use profanity laced tirades, needless personal attacks or threats, is the day I’d sink to that level...of course I don’t anticipate that day coming.

I do confess to enjoying correcting your misunderstandings, which is very much, a "guilty pleasure." You may not believe the things you post, but you don’t understand those things either, or you wouldn’t post as you do.

Moreover, I’ve recently gotten you to acknowledge that (1) you are indeed a Liberal (you just called yourself a “Liberal entrepreneur” a couple posts up) and (2) got you to admit that even you don’t believe many of the things you post, calling your own posts “trolling.”

That’s real progress Barely. Next, would be getting you to stop worrying so much about what other people think of you. For that, you might want to read some books by P.D. Ouspensky and G I Gurdjief – great writers!