<!--QuoteBegin--Smoke Nova+Nov 17 2003, 04:00 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Smoke Nova @ Nov 17 2003, 04:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> For those saying that Dem's suck at war:
World War I & II a Democrat president was in office (IIRC). The Great War and The Final War (on that scale)
btw, I gleamed this from Dean's Foreign Policy page:
I opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq from the beginning. While Saddam Hussein’s regime was clearly evil and needed to be disarmed, it did not present an immediate threat to U.S. security that would justify going to war, particularly going to war alone. From the beginning, I felt that winning the war would not be the hard part winning the peace would be. This Administration failed to plan for the postwar period as it did for the battle, and today we are paying the price.
My opposition to the war, however, is part of a comprehensive view of America’s role in the world that I presented to the Council on Foreign Relations on June 25th (click here for full text). In that speech, I laid out four goals for American leadership in the world:
-First, defeat the threat posed by terrorists, tyrants, and technologies of mass destruction. -Second, strengthen our alliances and ensure Russia and China are fully integrated into a stable international order. -Third, enlarge the circle of beneficiaries of the growing world economy. -And fourth, ensure that life on our fragile planet is sustainable.
So if your saying he's just gonna shell up the homeland, no.
and the funny thing is, Jammer, that Bush actually added a lot more into big gov't by creating the Dept. of Homeland Security. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is a **** poor historical comparison, anyone today will tell you that democrats yesterday were just like Republicans today.
As in the words of Reagan:
"I didn't leave the Democrats, they left me."
Anyhow, I'm voting Bush, because the demoncratic party (sp mistake on purpose) is just so craptacular, I don't have a choice.
Wow, Forlorn. You just added so much intelligent, well-thought out, respectful commentary to the debate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You sir have been brainwashed by the bullcrap the mainstream media spews out, I suggest www.mrc.org for you. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sir, might I add, your link seems to have <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><SARCASM></span> absolutely no agenda whatsoever. Not <i>one</i> bit of its own bias. <i>Very</i> impartial.<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'></SARCASM></span>
It's like getting accused of being brainwashed by a guy in an airport wearing a fennel robe carrying little flowers, a tambourine, and a glass of fizzing kool-aid.
Forlorn, watch your comments. Assuming Vermont liberals = communist russia is like assuming all Republicans = pompous arseholes who think they have the only correct view.
In case you haven't noticed, I happen to be from Vermont. The only thing similar to communist Russia is perhaps...the healthcare for the poor and the un-employment insurance.
I remember the good ol days (well don't remember, but I was told) the Democrats and the Republicans used to have the same agenda. Those must have been the days... Then the star-child hippie generation came in... Shudder.
Anyways, Bush for 2004 because... Lieberman's voice sounds funny! Dean is well... Nevermind I don't know/care much for the other party. All the candidates are pretty much clones. Except for Sharpton. Heh, crazy Sharpton.
I voted Libertarian in the last election. While I absolutely hate voting party lines, I hope for a Bush loss in the primary (unlikely as it may be) so that I may have a choice of another Republican.
I wish that it were possible for the Republicans to drop the Christian angles that it has adopted in the last few years. Unfortunately I don't see this as possible unless there were a similar rift in the Democrats(Greens maybe?) The Republicans could not withstand the loss of votes that would result from such a schizm and would hand all elections to the democrats in perpetuity. (shudder)
However, if there were identical rifts in both parties, not only would we have eliminated the elements I dispise most on both sides, but we would also have created viable 3rd and 4th parties.
But, I have been told that I am a hopeless optomist.
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Nov 18 2003, 06:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Nov 18 2003, 06:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Nov 13 2003, 09:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Nov 13 2003, 09:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How isn't he a moderate? He is against gun registration and he is also a fiscal conservative. The only strong liberal trait he has is that he was against the war. And if you hear his reasoning he wasn't really against it just because it was a war, but because it wasn't operated well from the beginning, which he believes others in his party ignored at the time.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Fiscal conservative...
Man... I always need a great laugh once in awhile. This is why I keep coming back to the forums.
Anyhow, he is <b>not</b> a fiscal conservative... he is by vermont standards perhaps. However, the conservatives in vermont = liberals in the U.S. senate, and the liberals in vermont = communist russia. It's that bad.
You sir have been brainwashed by the bullcrap the mainstream media spews out, I suggest <a href='http://www.mrc.org' target='_blank'>www.mrc.org</a> for you. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think what you've said sums up my reaction to your post:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Man... I always need a great laugh once in awhile. This is why I keep coming back to the forums.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
really, we should ban attacking sources in this manner.
if you want to point out that somebody elses source is wrong. you MUST do so on a point by point basis. copy paste a section of the text and then EXPLAIN why its wrong. were here to learn from each other, not to **** each other off. you cant teach with such an 'agressive attitude'.
(ps. remember, this goes both ways! all you dirty rightists! no more 'OMJ conspiracy hax' please)
I have passionate views concerning my personal liberties and the environment. I would vote Green if it were not for their RABID SOCIALISTIC STANCE.
I would vote Libertarian if I were not worried that they would butt their heads against the rest of the politicians (trying to accomplish too much too fast)
I am left with the choice between Democrats and Republicans. While I dislike the religious undertone that has taken this party I cannot stand the government bloat that Democrats seem to want to inflict upon the People of the US.
My views:
Pro - personal freedoms Pro - Smaller fed. Pro - Environment Pro - Second Amendment Pro - Flat income tax Pro - 18 year old drinking age
Anti - Social welfare ( if taken beyond safetynet systems) Anti - Religious based laws Anti - Affirmative Action Anti - Political posturing. Anti - 'Blue' Laws
These are just a few of them. And most are subject to some deviation (I'm not just Pro or Anti something rather Support/notSupport)
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--wizard@psu+Nov 18 2003, 06:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 18 2003, 06:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Pro - Flat income tax <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The rest of it I more or less agree with, except this. Flat taxes are based on a model of Utility that was outdated in the 1700s. Money does not have linear value. The utility curves that economists normally work with are either logarithmic or horizontally asymptotic at some maximum utility.
if you think money has linear value, consider the following.
Which would you rather have?
1. a 50% chance of winning a million dollars, or 2. a 10% chance of winning 6 million dollars.
Most people choose #1, even though mathematically, the expected value of the second one is higher. If our Utility function for money were linear, the second choice would be preferable. Progressive taxes (in addition to making the economy more stable) correct for this by making the tax a percentage of your utility rather than a percentage of your income.
But remember not all the things I mentioned there were because I felt they were fair <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> I will be entering one of those higher tax brackets at the end of my college career.
edit: Moral: Never trust a politican.
In all honesty however, the current tax system places far to great a burden upon the middle class. The upper echelons can afford it. The poor don't pay it. The middle cannot afford it.
<!--QuoteBegin--Smoke Nova+Nov 17 2003, 07:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Smoke Nova @ Nov 17 2003, 07:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If McCain does run as a dem, it would be a tough choice. He is a Republican but stands for so many things that are known as being Democrat.
Too bad he didn't beat Bush in 2000 <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> He ducked out. If he had stayed in he probably would have gotten the Republican nomination. Actually, there's no need for the probably, he WOULD have gotten it.
<!--QuoteBegin--Smoke Nova+Nov 18 2003, 05:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Smoke Nova @ Nov 18 2003, 05:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Forlorn, watch your comments. Assuming Vermont liberals = communist russia is like assuming all Republicans = pompous arseholes who think they have the only correct view.
In case you haven't noticed, I happen to be from Vermont. The only thing similar to communist Russia is perhaps...the healthcare for the poor and the un-employment insurance.
Very poor analogy.
once I calm down i'll post more. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Bah, Forlon is probably just sick of every damned editoral in every major newspaper across the country coming from some disgruntled "social justice caring" College Student calling every republican an uber facist.
<!--QuoteBegin--Melatonin+Nov 18 2003, 06:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Nov 18 2003, 06:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> really, we should ban attacking sources in this manner.
if you want to point out that somebody elses source is wrong. you MUST do so on a point by point basis. copy paste a section of the text and then EXPLAIN why its wrong. were here to learn from each other, not to **** each other off. you cant teach with such an 'agressive attitude'.
(ps. remember, this goes both ways! all you dirty rightists! no more 'OMJ conspiracy hax' please) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> All us dirty rightest?
Well **** you, you bleeding heart cry baby pissant liberal.
<!--QuoteBegin--wizard@psu+Nov 18 2003, 06:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 18 2003, 06:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I have passionate views concerning my personal liberties and the environment. I would vote Green if it were not for their RABID SOCIALISTIC STANCE.
I would vote Libertarian if I were not worried that they would butt their heads against the rest of the politicians (trying to accomplish too much too fast)
I am left with the choice between Democrats and Republicans. While I dislike the religious undertone that has taken this party I cannot stand the government bloat that Democrats seem to want to inflict upon the People of the US.
My views:
Pro - personal freedoms Pro - Smaller fed. Pro - Environment Pro - Second Amendment Pro - Flat income tax Pro - 18 year old drinking age
Anti - Social welfare ( if taken beyond safetynet systems) Anti - Religious based laws Anti - Affirmative Action Anti - Political posturing. Anti - 'Blue' Laws
These are just a few of them. And most are subject to some deviation (I'm not just Pro or Anti something rather Support/notSupport) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Wizard, I think I like you =)
Xzilen, where exactly are the articles from College students calling republican's uber-fascists? If he can't substantiate his claims, he shouldn't make them.
Renegade, damn straight. I actually got to see John McCain live and in person @ the U.S. Senate. It was actually kind of funny when I visited Congress, because y'all know how Senators/Represenatives seem to live aloof? Well, me and my mother ran into Joe Lieberman and my mother didn't recgonize him until he walked by and had his crazy hair look. Also, only in Vermont could you run the chance of running into your represenative (Bernie Sanders, I) at the local video store. or on the local Bike Path. or at the Community Gardens.
<!--QuoteBegin--Smoke Nova+Nov 19 2003, 01:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Smoke Nova @ Nov 19 2003, 01:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Xzilen, where exactly are the articles from College students calling republican's uber-fascists? If he can't substantiate his claims, he shouldn't make them.
Renegade, damn straight. I actually got to see John McCain live and in person @ the U.S. Senate. It was actually kind of funny when I visited Congress, because y'all know how Senators/Represenatives seem to live aloof? Well, me and my mother ran into Joe Lieberman and my mother didn't recgonize him until he walked by and had his crazy hair look. Also, only in Vermont could you run the chance of running into your represenative (Bernie Sanders, I) at the local video store. or on the local Bike Path. or at the Community Gardens. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ever read any college essays by followers of Chomsky? I rest my case.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->every damned editoral in every major newspaper across the country <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ever read any college essays by followers of Chomsky? I rest my case. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Come on, Xzilen. First, these two statments really don't logically follow one another. Are you honestly trying to assert that the editorial pages across the world are owned by Chomskyites? And how do college essays somehow create an airtight case about the op/ed sections of major US newspapers?
I mean, if you're asserting that Chomsky's rabid followers own all major news outlet editorial pages, I'm thinking that you'd also be referring to the WSJ op/ed, the Washington Times, the New York Post, et al. Which doesn't really seem all that likely.
Let's watch the hyperbole <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->.
1) xzilen. you have a bad attitude. i meant no offence, in fact quite the opposite, it was meant as a light hearted comment, sorry you took it the wrong way.
2) when did chomsky become open game? I quite like the man.
2ii) someone give me a link to a man 'more in tune with reality' than chomsky and ill be thankful to you.
3) please try not to get more **** off with me. cant we talk, rather than argue?
<a href='http://www.collegian.psu.edu/opinions/opinions.asp' target='_blank'>My University Newspaper's opinion page</a>
College newspapers bash Republicans and Democrats. It just happens to alternate days. First, one side bashes the other, The next day we get to see the rebuttal. Much like this topic <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Overall, we tend to see more democrats in liberal arts majors and more republicans in science/technical majors. Guess which side tends to write more articles for a newspaper <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> Its not a consipiracy, its business as usual.
edit: OMG did I just refer to myself as a Republican? *runs off to take a shower* I feel so dirty.
This is all so very funny. It's almost as hilarious as the thought of Al Sharpton actually becoming the president of the United States of America. ...nevermind, bad analogy, that's not very funny...amost a suicide inducing "not funny."
I think Bush will continue for another term of office. From what I've seen the economy <b>is getting better</b> despite nay-sayers and terrorist action. Also, the current Democratic canidates are too negative on too many issues. Yes this does reinforce the resolve of their base group but give it another year of campaigning involving nay-saying and muck-throwing and the neutral parties needed to win an election will be absolutely sick of them.
Right now Democratic and Republican propaganda is like telemarketers versus a billboard. People see the billboard with Bush's goofy face on it every now and again, and some people want to egg it, or use it as a target for a hunting weapon.
In contrast, the telemarketers are calling people up constantly throughout every day and preaching how bad off we are without their grand and wonderful leadership that can be purchased through a vote. <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'> Void where prohibited. Allow 1 year for delivery. Promises to the public not guaranteed. Side effects might include higher taxes for the middle class, sexual scandals, negation of amendment rights, neglecting to act upon reports of incoming threats, over-equalization of class, race, and/or creed, general government complacency, and a tendancy to follow the old european idea of appeasement. </span>
Personally I dislike both the Democratic and Republican parties. They both cater entirely too much to special interest groups and tend to ignore the public. If a person sees any canidate as "their man/woman" they have some gullibility issues.
It's all a facade, a wonderful facade. Putting on as many faces, as many masks as needed to get into an office to fatten themselves and their contributers whether it be ego or bank account. In the end, it all comes down to the public picking the pig with the proper hunger for the current issues.
Edit: Thought I'd go through and fix every error...then decided not to.
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Nov 19 2003, 11:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Nov 19 2003, 11:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I doubt xzilen's views about Chomsky are based on anything but assumptions and what his favorite "unbiased" commentator fed him.
But he is part of a large majority in this forum. I don't understand how some of you can't understand how stupid what you're saying is. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually I've read most of his works.
My favorite is his one two weeks after 9/11. What a piece of garbage that was.
In Summary:
America is to blame for the attacks. Innocent people should have died because they were the white collar workers
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a horrendous crime is not in doubt. The primary victims, as usual, were working people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.
The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of the project of "missile defense." As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by strategic analysts, if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US, including weapons of mass destruction, they are highly unlikely to launch a missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate destruction. There are innumerable easier ways that are basically unstoppable. But today's events will, very likely, be exploited to increase the pressure to develop these systems and put them into place. "Defense" is a thin cover for plans for militarization of space, and with good PR, even the flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public.
In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to use force to control their domains. That is even putting aside the likely US actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks like this one, or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than they appeared to be before the latest atrocities.
As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into affairs of the region is unmatched after many years of distinguished reporting. Describing "The wickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world will be asked to believe in the coming days. It is also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells crashing into a village called Qana and about a Lebanese militia -- paid and uniformed by America's Israeli ally -- hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps." And much more. Again, we have a choice: we may try to understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is that the article you were attempting to summarize? I can't find any other from that time by him, but its hard to believe that you honestly think he's saying "America is to blame for the attacks. Innocent people should have died because they were the white collar workers."
Forlorn directed us to mrc.org, in order to cure us of all the 'liberal' brainwashing going on in the media. Just found this, in reference to Bernie Goldberg's new book. Apparently, mrc has a nasty habit taking quotes completely out of context and presenting them at face value. Just thought I'd post in case anyone had developed a hankering to follow his advice.
(This is all from the Daily Howler)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A FISHER OF RUBES: How big a fraud is Bernie Goldberg? Let’s return to that puzzling “quotation” from his new book, Arrogance—the quote we discussed in yesterday’s HOWLER (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/18/03). In his chapter about the New York Times, Bernie Goldberg thunders and rails about liberal demon Howell Raines:
GOLDBERG (page 66): A lot of people—and not just conservatives—think [the Times] hit rock bottom in 2001, when Howell Raines took over as executive editor… Raines was famously quoted as saying that “the Reagan years oppressed me.” He has also declared that Reagan, a man beloved by millions of his countrymen, “couldn’t tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it.”
In contrast, there was his view of Bill Clinton: “Huge political talent,” declared Raines when Charlie Rose asked how he thought history would regard Clinton.
Raines loved Clinton, and just hated Reagan: It’s a message the talk-show right loves to hear. And Bernie had the perfect quote—a quote that could make readers feel like real victims! Ronald Reagan was loved by millions—but Raines rudely said he couldn’t tie his own shoes! Pseudo-con readers could cry all day long when they read the rude thing Raines had said. But was the “quotation” actually accurate? Did Raines say that Ronald Reagan “couldn’t tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it?” In yesterday’s HOWLER, we voiced our suspicions about the oddly truncated quote. From Google searches, we knew that Goldberg had taken the quote from the archives of the Media Research Center. And as we noted, the MRC is pathologically dishonest; the influential org holds every world record for pulling “quotations” out of any sane context. We could find no record of the full quote, but we did notice something which made us suspicious. We knew the quote came from Raines’ book, Fly Fishing Through the Midlife Crisis. And, since reviews had said that the book dealt in part with the way different presidents fished and tied flies, we couldn’t help wondering if the truncated quote had to do with Reagan’s skill on a stream. We knew, all too well, how the MRC works. We couldn’t help wondering if the truncated quote might concern the way Reagan tied flies!
And sure enough! Let’s face it, readers—if there’s a way to commit fraud with a “quote,” the MRC will find it. Readers sent us to amazon.com, where you can now search a book’s contents. We called up Fly Fishing, and sure enough! The “shoelaces” quote is on page 84. And yes, it deals with Reagan’s fishing—and it isn’t even Raines who is speaking!
Who actually makes the disturbing statement? Raines is out in the boonies with the late **** Blalock, a legendary Maryland fishing guide. Blalock has Raines on a fast-running stream—and he talks about fisherman presidents:
RAINES (pages 83-84): Even here in northern Maryland, we were still below the Mason-Dixon line and technically still in the South. More to the point, we were in hillbilly territory. In the nineteenth century, these people tended whiskey stills…Now their descendants still lived back in the hollows of the Catoctins, experienced poachers of deer and turkey and of the fat trout in the fly-fishing-only section of Hunting Creek. In short, **** Blalock had brought me to one of the northernmost outposts of the Redneck Way. “See that pool?” said ****. “That was Jimmy Carter’s favorite pool when he was President. We’re only about a mile from Camp David. The Fish and Wildlife boys kept the stream lousy with big brood fish from the hatcheries when he was up here. I knew a guy who used to slip in and give every big trout in the stream a sore lip whenever he heard Carter was coming. Of course, I liked Carter. Charlie Fox and Ben Schley taught him a lot about fishing, and he ties a good fly. Reagan couldn’t tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it.”
Amazing, isn’t it? But typical of the way Bernie Goldberg does business. In short, it was Blalock who made the statement, not Raines, as Bernie blusters to her misused, misled readers. And what was Blalock plainly saying? That Reagan didn’t know how to tie flies! That’s the actual context of the “quote” which the MRC has been flogging for years. And it’s flogged again in Bernie’s fake book, finally reaching a national audience. Bernie Goldberg is a fisher of rubes. And he’s reeling them in with this fakery. Of course, this isn’t the first time that Goldberg has cadged a phony “quote” from the MRC. How big a fake is Bernie Goldberg? In Bias, he slandered Times writer Natalie Angier with a similar MRC cut-and-paste job. Years earlier, Angier—a science writer—had written a piece about insect reproduction. And the MRC had swung into action; they clipped a quote and made it sound like Angier had written a piece bashing men! (See THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/12/02. Prepare to emit mordant chuckles.) Bernie, of course, just cut-and-pasted—and ranted. The rough little man clipped the ludicrous “quote” and ranted and railed for the readers of Bias. Now, he cuts and pastes from an old fishing tale, and says that Raines trashed Ronald Reagan.
But so it goes when people like Goldberg cut-and-paste lures to hook the big rubes. And so it goes when the nation’s reviewers are simply too frightened to stop him. When our series ends, we’ll ask the obvious—why is this fake, phony man still in business? When will the nation’s “reviewers” stand up to his utter contempt for your discourse? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, well, I'm <i>sure</i> this is an isolated incident.
<!--QuoteBegin--Xzilen+Nov 20 2003, 08:02 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Xzilen @ Nov 20 2003, 08:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Nov 19 2003, 11:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Nov 19 2003, 11:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I doubt xzilen's views about Chomsky are based on anything but assumptions and what his favorite "unbiased" commentator fed him.
But he is part of a large majority in this forum. I don't understand how some of you can't understand how stupid what you're saying is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually I've read most of his works.
My favorite is his one two weeks after 9/11. What a piece of garbage that was.
In Summary:
America is to blame for the attacks. Innocent people should have died because they were the white collar workers <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And if you weren't so biased then maybe you would actually think about his idea. His view is a bit too strong because any victim can be seen as being at fault for their abuse. But most people on the conservative side of the spectrum completely ignore that American isn't innocent.
I believe that America has a right to the justice it is seeking through warfare, but I also understand that those who are guilty also have a pretty good reason for doing what they did. Neither are excused, the terrorists give excuses and the American government just denies or ignores their prior involvement.
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Nov 21 2003, 03:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Nov 21 2003, 03:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But most people on the conservative side of the spectrum completely ignore that American isn't innocent. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then again most of those on the liberal side do not understand that isolationism will not make us innocent again. We are in this mess, and will have to actively get out of it.
Past experience shows that the UN is about as active as some species of plant.
As a non-US citizen only able to glean information about the Democratic Primaries over the internet (and I only got around today to finding out what they actually <i>are</i>), can someone from the US explain to me why Dean is getting so much more coverage than Kucinich?
As far as I can see, Kucinich has got a far more coherent platform and message, and would seem to be able to put forward a compelling and different vision, and really be able to present a clear alternative to Bush's world view. Whereas Dean just seems to be pragmatically trying to steer down a "centre-line" that's been pulled massively to the right by Bush, a bit like Blair.
Is Dean really strong enough and consistent enough to effectively challenge Bush? Is he a real alternative? His campaign, including his anti-war stance, has just struck me as political opportunism, and I'd be worried that floating voters, or those who may not be motivated to vote at all, would think the same.
Is it that Dean looks better on TV? Not having seen either in the flesh, I don't know.
Dean is a little bit like Al Gore, where he isn't as strong a personality on TV then in person.
But the thing about Dean is that it is not just political oppurtunism. He's had the same views, the same stances for a long time, it's just that recent events have brought them to the surface.
Comments
World War I & II a Democrat president was in office (IIRC). The Great War and The Final War (on that scale)
btw, I gleamed this from Dean's Foreign Policy page:
I opposed President Bush’s war in Iraq from the beginning. While Saddam Hussein’s regime was clearly evil and needed to be disarmed, it did not present an immediate threat to U.S. security that would justify going to war, particularly going to war alone. From the beginning, I felt that winning the war would not be the hard part winning the peace would be. This Administration failed to plan for the postwar period as it did for the battle, and today we are paying the price.
My opposition to the war, however, is part of a comprehensive view of America’s role in the world that I presented to the Council on Foreign Relations on June 25th (click here for full text). In that speech, I laid out four goals for American leadership in the world:
-First, defeat the threat posed by terrorists, tyrants, and technologies of mass destruction.
-Second, strengthen our alliances and ensure Russia and China are fully integrated into a stable international order.
-Third, enlarge the circle of beneficiaries of the growing world economy.
-And fourth, ensure that life on our fragile planet is sustainable.
So if your saying he's just gonna shell up the homeland, no.
and the funny thing is, Jammer, that Bush actually added a lot more into big gov't by creating the Dept. of Homeland Security. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a **** poor historical comparison, anyone today will tell you that democrats yesterday were just like Republicans today.
As in the words of Reagan:
"I didn't leave the Democrats, they left me."
Anyhow, I'm voting Bush, because the demoncratic party (sp mistake on purpose) is just so craptacular, I don't have a choice.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You sir have been brainwashed by the bullcrap the mainstream media spews out, I suggest www.mrc.org for you.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sir, might I add, your link seems to have
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><SARCASM></span>
absolutely no agenda whatsoever. Not <i>one</i> bit of its own bias. <i>Very</i> impartial.<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'></SARCASM></span>
It's like getting accused of being brainwashed by a guy in an airport wearing a fennel robe carrying little flowers, a tambourine, and a glass of fizzing kool-aid.
In case you haven't noticed, I happen to be from Vermont. The only thing similar to communist Russia is perhaps...the healthcare for the poor and the un-employment insurance.
Very poor analogy.
once I calm down i'll post more.
Anyways, Bush for 2004 because...
Lieberman's voice sounds funny!
Dean is well... Nevermind I don't know/care much for the other party. All the candidates are pretty much clones. Except for Sharpton. Heh, crazy Sharpton.
I wish that it were possible for the Republicans to drop the Christian angles that it has adopted in the last few years. Unfortunately I don't see this as possible unless there were a similar rift in the Democrats(Greens maybe?) The Republicans could not withstand the loss of votes that would result from such a schizm and would hand all elections to the democrats in perpetuity. (shudder)
However, if there were identical rifts in both parties, not only would we have eliminated the elements I dispise most on both sides, but we would also have created viable 3rd and 4th parties.
But, I have been told that I am a hopeless optomist.
Fiscal conservative...
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA</span>
Man... I always need a great laugh once in awhile. This is why I keep coming back to the forums.
Anyhow, he is <b>not</b> a fiscal conservative... he is by vermont standards perhaps. However, the conservatives in vermont = liberals in the U.S. senate, and the liberals in vermont = communist russia. It's that bad.
You sir have been brainwashed by the bullcrap the mainstream media spews out, I suggest <a href='http://www.mrc.org' target='_blank'>www.mrc.org</a> for you. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think what you've said sums up my reaction to your post:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Man... I always need a great laugh once in awhile. This is why I keep coming back to the forums.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
if you want to point out that somebody elses source is wrong.
you MUST do so on a point by point basis.
copy paste a section of the text and then EXPLAIN why its wrong.
were here to learn from each other, not to **** each other off.
you cant teach with such an 'agressive attitude'.
(ps. remember, this goes both ways! all you dirty rightists! no more 'OMJ conspiracy hax' please)
I would vote Libertarian if I were not worried that they would butt their heads against the rest of the politicians (trying to accomplish too much too fast)
I am left with the choice between Democrats and Republicans. While I dislike the religious undertone that has taken this party I cannot stand the government bloat that Democrats seem to want to inflict upon the People of the US.
My views:
Pro - personal freedoms
Pro - Smaller fed.
Pro - Environment
Pro - Second Amendment
Pro - Flat income tax
Pro - 18 year old drinking age
Anti - Social welfare ( if taken beyond safetynet systems)
Anti - Religious based laws
Anti - Affirmative Action
Anti - Political posturing.
Anti - 'Blue' Laws
These are just a few of them. And most are subject to some deviation (I'm not just Pro or Anti something rather Support/notSupport)
Though I wouldn't plan on voting in a Republican primary next fall. The RNC will only place one name on the ballot.
The rest of it I more or less agree with, except this. Flat taxes are based on a model of Utility that was outdated in the 1700s. Money does not have linear value. The utility curves that economists normally work with are either logarithmic or horizontally asymptotic at some maximum utility.
if you think money has linear value, consider the following.
Which would you rather have?
1. a 50% chance of winning a million dollars,
or
2. a 10% chance of winning 6 million dollars.
Most people choose #1, even though mathematically, the expected value of the second one is higher. If our Utility function for money were linear, the second choice would be preferable. Progressive taxes (in addition to making the economy more stable) correct for this by making the tax a percentage of your utility rather than a percentage of your income.
But remember not all the things I mentioned there were because I felt they were fair <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
I will be entering one of those higher tax brackets at the end of my college career.
edit: Moral: Never trust a politican.
In all honesty however, the current tax system places far to great a burden upon the middle class. The upper echelons can afford it. The poor don't pay it. The middle cannot afford it.
Too bad he didn't beat Bush in 2000 <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
He ducked out. If he had stayed in he probably would have gotten the Republican nomination. Actually, there's no need for the probably, he WOULD have gotten it.
In case you haven't noticed, I happen to be from Vermont. The only thing similar to communist Russia is perhaps...the healthcare for the poor and the un-employment insurance.
Very poor analogy.
once I calm down i'll post more. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bah, Forlon is probably just sick of every damned editoral in every major newspaper across the country coming from some disgruntled "social justice caring" College Student calling every republican an uber facist.
if you want to point out that somebody elses source is wrong.
you MUST do so on a point by point basis.
copy paste a section of the text and then EXPLAIN why its wrong.
were here to learn from each other, not to **** each other off.
you cant teach with such an 'agressive attitude'.
(ps. remember, this goes both ways! all you dirty rightists! no more 'OMJ conspiracy hax' please) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
All us dirty rightest?
Well **** you, you bleeding heart cry baby pissant liberal.
I would vote Libertarian if I were not worried that they would butt their heads against the rest of the politicians (trying to accomplish too much too fast)
I am left with the choice between Democrats and Republicans. While I dislike the religious undertone that has taken this party I cannot stand the government bloat that Democrats seem to want to inflict upon the People of the US.
My views:
Pro - personal freedoms
Pro - Smaller fed.
Pro - Environment
Pro - Second Amendment
Pro - Flat income tax
Pro - 18 year old drinking age
Anti - Social welfare ( if taken beyond safetynet systems)
Anti - Religious based laws
Anti - Affirmative Action
Anti - Political posturing.
Anti - 'Blue' Laws
These are just a few of them. And most are subject to some deviation (I'm not just Pro or Anti something rather Support/notSupport) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wizard, I think I like you =)
Renegade, damn straight. I actually got to see John McCain live and in person @ the U.S. Senate. It was actually kind of funny when I visited Congress, because y'all know how Senators/Represenatives seem to live aloof? Well, me and my mother ran into Joe Lieberman and my mother didn't recgonize him until he walked by and had his crazy hair look. Also, only in Vermont could you run the chance of running into your represenative (Bernie Sanders, I) at the local video store. or on the local Bike Path. or at the Community Gardens.
Renegade, damn straight. I actually got to see John McCain live and in person @ the U.S. Senate. It was actually kind of funny when I visited Congress, because y'all know how Senators/Represenatives seem to live aloof? Well, me and my mother ran into Joe Lieberman and my mother didn't recgonize him until he walked by and had his crazy hair look. Also, only in Vermont could you run the chance of running into your represenative (Bernie Sanders, I) at the local video store. or on the local Bike Path. or at the Community Gardens. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ever read any college essays by followers of Chomsky? I rest my case.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ever read any college essays by followers of Chomsky? I rest my case. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Come on, Xzilen. First, these two statments really don't logically follow one another. Are you honestly trying to assert that the editorial pages across the world are owned by Chomskyites? And how do college essays somehow create an airtight case about the op/ed sections of major US newspapers?
I mean, if you're asserting that Chomsky's rabid followers own all major news outlet editorial pages, I'm thinking that you'd also be referring to the WSJ op/ed, the Washington Times, the New York Post, et al. Which doesn't really seem all that likely.
Let's watch the hyperbole <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->.
xzilen. you have a bad attitude.
i meant no offence, in fact quite the opposite, it was meant as a light hearted comment, sorry you took it the wrong way.
2)
when did chomsky become open game?
I quite like the man.
2ii)
someone give me a link to a man 'more in tune with reality' than chomsky and ill be thankful to you.
3)
please try not to get more **** off with me. cant we talk, rather than argue?
But he is part of a large majority in this forum. I don't understand how some of you can't understand how stupid what you're saying is.
College newspapers bash Republicans and Democrats. It just happens to alternate days. First, one side bashes the other, The next day we get to see the rebuttal. Much like this topic <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Overall, we tend to see more democrats in liberal arts majors and more republicans in science/technical majors. Guess which side tends to write more articles for a newspaper <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> Its not a consipiracy, its business as usual.
edit: OMG did I just refer to myself as a Republican? *runs off to take a shower* I feel so dirty.
This is all so very funny. It's almost as hilarious as the thought of Al Sharpton actually becoming the president of the United States of America. ...nevermind, bad analogy, that's not very funny...amost a suicide inducing "not funny."
I think Bush will continue for another term of office. From what I've seen the economy <b>is getting better</b> despite nay-sayers and terrorist action. Also, the current Democratic canidates are too negative on too many issues. Yes this does reinforce the resolve of their base group but give it another year of campaigning involving nay-saying and muck-throwing and the neutral parties needed to win an election will be absolutely sick of them.
Right now Democratic and Republican propaganda is like telemarketers versus a billboard. People see the billboard with Bush's goofy face on it every now and again, and some people want to egg it, or use it as a target for a hunting weapon.
In contrast, the telemarketers are calling people up constantly throughout every day and preaching how bad off we are without their grand and wonderful leadership that can be purchased through a vote. <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'> Void where prohibited. Allow 1 year for delivery. Promises to the public not guaranteed. Side effects might include higher taxes for the middle class, sexual scandals, negation of amendment rights, neglecting to act upon reports of incoming threats, over-equalization of class, race, and/or creed, general government complacency, and a tendancy to follow the old european idea of appeasement. </span>
Personally I dislike both the Democratic and Republican parties. They both cater entirely too much to special interest groups and tend to ignore the public. If a person sees any canidate as "their man/woman" they have some gullibility issues.
It's all a facade, a wonderful facade. Putting on as many faces, as many masks as needed to get into an office to fatten themselves and their contributers whether it be ego or bank account. In the end, it all comes down to the public picking the pig with the proper hunger for the current issues.
Edit: Thought I'd go through and fix every error...then decided not to.
But he is part of a large majority in this forum. I don't understand how some of you can't understand how stupid what you're saying is. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I've read most of his works.
My favorite is his one two weeks after 9/11. What a piece of garbage that was.
In Summary:
America is to blame for the attacks. Innocent people should have died because they were the white collar workers
The events reveal, dramatically, the foolishness of the project of "missile defense." As has been obvious all along, and pointed out repeatedly by strategic analysts, if anyone wants to cause immense damage in the US, including weapons of mass destruction, they are highly unlikely to launch a missile attack, thus guaranteeing their immediate destruction. There are innumerable easier ways that are basically unstoppable. But today's events will, very likely, be exploited to increase the pressure to develop these systems and put them into place. "Defense" is a thin cover for plans for militarization of space, and with good PR, even the flimsiest arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public.
In short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who hope to use force to control their domains. That is even putting aside the likely US actions, and what they will trigger -- possibly more attacks like this one, or worse. The prospects ahead are even more ominous than they appeared to be before the latest atrocities.
As to how to react, we have a choice. We can express justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have led to the crimes, which means making an effort to enter the minds of the likely perpetrators. If we choose the latter course, we can do no better, I think, than to listen to the words of Robert Fisk, whose direct knowledge and insight into affairs of the region is unmatched after many years of distinguished reporting. Describing "The wickedness and awesome cruelty of a crushed and humiliated people," he writes that "this is not the war of democracy versus terror that the world will be asked to believe in the coming days. It is also about American missiles smashing into Palestinian homes and US helicopters firing missiles into a Lebanese ambulance in 1996 and American shells crashing into a village called Qana and about a Lebanese militia -- paid and uniformed by America's Israeli ally -- hacking and raping and murdering their way through refugee camps." And much more. Again, we have a choice: we may try to understand, or refuse to do so, contributing to the likelihood that much worse lies ahead.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is that the article you were attempting to summarize? I can't find any other from that time by him, but its hard to believe that you honestly think he's saying "America is to blame for the attacks. Innocent people should have died because they were the white collar workers."
Forlorn directed us to mrc.org, in order to cure us of all the 'liberal' brainwashing going on in the media. Just found this, in reference to Bernie Goldberg's new book. Apparently, mrc has a nasty habit taking quotes completely out of context and presenting them at face value. Just thought I'd post in case anyone had developed a hankering to follow his advice.
(This is all from the Daily Howler)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A FISHER OF RUBES: How big a fraud is Bernie Goldberg? Let’s return to that puzzling “quotation” from his new book, Arrogance—the quote we discussed in yesterday’s HOWLER (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/18/03). In his chapter about the New York Times, Bernie Goldberg thunders and rails about liberal demon Howell Raines:
GOLDBERG (page 66): A lot of people—and not just conservatives—think [the Times] hit rock bottom in 2001, when Howell Raines took over as executive editor…
Raines was famously quoted as saying that “the Reagan years oppressed me.” He has also declared that Reagan, a man beloved by millions of his countrymen, “couldn’t tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it.”
In contrast, there was his view of Bill Clinton: “Huge political talent,” declared Raines when Charlie Rose asked how he thought history would regard Clinton.
Raines loved Clinton, and just hated Reagan: It’s a message the talk-show right loves to hear. And Bernie had the perfect quote—a quote that could make readers feel like real victims! Ronald Reagan was loved by millions—but Raines rudely said he couldn’t tie his own shoes! Pseudo-con readers could cry all day long when they read the rude thing Raines had said.
But was the “quotation” actually accurate? Did Raines say that Ronald Reagan “couldn’t tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it?” In yesterday’s HOWLER, we voiced our suspicions about the oddly truncated quote. From Google searches, we knew that Goldberg had taken the quote from the archives of the Media Research Center. And as we noted, the MRC is pathologically dishonest; the influential org holds every world record for pulling “quotations” out of any sane context. We could find no record of the full quote, but we did notice something which made us suspicious. We knew the quote came from Raines’ book, Fly Fishing Through the Midlife Crisis. And, since reviews had said that the book dealt in part with the way different presidents fished and tied flies, we couldn’t help wondering if the truncated quote had to do with Reagan’s skill on a stream. We knew, all too well, how the MRC works. We couldn’t help wondering if the truncated quote might concern the way Reagan tied flies!
And sure enough! Let’s face it, readers—if there’s a way to commit fraud with a “quote,” the MRC will find it. Readers sent us to amazon.com, where you can now search a book’s contents. We called up Fly Fishing, and sure enough! The “shoelaces” quote is on page 84. And yes, it deals with Reagan’s fishing—and it isn’t even Raines who is speaking!
Who actually makes the disturbing statement? Raines is out in the boonies with the late **** Blalock, a legendary Maryland fishing guide. Blalock has Raines on a fast-running stream—and he talks about fisherman presidents:
RAINES (pages 83-84): Even here in northern Maryland, we were still below the Mason-Dixon line and technically still in the South. More to the point, we were in hillbilly territory. In the nineteenth century, these people tended whiskey stills…Now their descendants still lived back in the hollows of the Catoctins, experienced poachers of deer and turkey and of the fat trout in the fly-fishing-only section of Hunting Creek. In short, **** Blalock had brought me to one of the northernmost outposts of the Redneck Way.
“See that pool?” said ****. “That was Jimmy Carter’s favorite pool when he was President. We’re only about a mile from Camp David. The Fish and Wildlife boys kept the stream lousy with big brood fish from the hatcheries when he was up here. I knew a guy who used to slip in and give every big trout in the stream a sore lip whenever he heard Carter was coming. Of course, I liked Carter. Charlie Fox and Ben Schley taught him a lot about fishing, and he ties a good fly. Reagan couldn’t tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it.”
Amazing, isn’t it? But typical of the way Bernie Goldberg does business. In short, it was Blalock who made the statement, not Raines, as Bernie blusters to her misused, misled readers. And what was Blalock plainly saying? That Reagan didn’t know how to tie flies! That’s the actual context of the “quote” which the MRC has been flogging for years. And it’s flogged again in Bernie’s fake book, finally reaching a national audience. Bernie Goldberg is a fisher of rubes. And he’s reeling them in with this fakery.
Of course, this isn’t the first time that Goldberg has cadged a phony “quote” from the MRC. How big a fake is Bernie Goldberg? In Bias, he slandered Times writer Natalie Angier with a similar MRC cut-and-paste job. Years earlier, Angier—a science writer—had written a piece about insect reproduction. And the MRC had swung into action; they clipped a quote and made it sound like Angier had written a piece bashing men! (See THE DAILY HOWLER, 1/12/02. Prepare to emit mordant chuckles.) Bernie, of course, just cut-and-pasted—and ranted. The rough little man clipped the ludicrous “quote” and ranted and railed for the readers of Bias. Now, he cuts and pastes from an old fishing tale, and says that Raines trashed Ronald Reagan.
But so it goes when people like Goldberg cut-and-paste lures to hook the big rubes. And so it goes when the nation’s reviewers are simply too frightened to stop him. When our series ends, we’ll ask the obvious—why is this fake, phony man still in business? When will the nation’s “reviewers” stand up to his utter contempt for your discourse?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, well, I'm <i>sure</i> this is an isolated incident.
<a href='http://www.dailyhowler.com/h030402_1.shtml' target='_blank'>Or maybe not.</a>
<a href='http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020701.html' target='_blank'>More Perspective</a>
But he is part of a large majority in this forum. I don't understand how some of you can't understand how stupid what you're saying is. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I've read most of his works.
My favorite is his one two weeks after 9/11. What a piece of garbage that was.
In Summary:
America is to blame for the attacks. Innocent people should have died because they were the white collar workers <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And if you weren't so biased then maybe you would actually think about his idea. His view is a bit too strong because any victim can be seen as being at fault for their abuse. But most people on the conservative side of the spectrum completely ignore that American isn't innocent.
I believe that America has a right to the justice it is seeking through warfare, but I also understand that those who are guilty also have a pretty good reason for doing what they did. Neither are excused, the terrorists give excuses and the American government just denies or ignores their prior involvement.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then again most of those on the liberal side do not understand that isolationism will not make us innocent again. We are in this mess, and will have to actively get out of it.
Past experience shows that the UN is about as active as some species of plant.
As far as I can see, Kucinich has got a far more coherent platform and message, and would seem to be able to put forward a compelling and different vision, and really be able to present a clear alternative to Bush's world view. Whereas Dean just seems to be pragmatically trying to steer down a "centre-line" that's been pulled massively to the right by Bush, a bit like Blair.
Is Dean really strong enough and consistent enough to effectively challenge Bush? Is he a real alternative? His campaign, including his anti-war stance, has just struck me as political opportunism, and I'd be worried that floating voters, or those who may not be motivated to vote at all, would think the same.
Is it that Dean looks better on TV? Not having seen either in the flesh, I don't know.
But the thing about Dean is that it is not just political oppurtunism. He's had the same views, the same stances for a long time, it's just that recent events have brought them to the surface.