Posted on Fri, 03/07/2008 - 12:28 — by jankoski
because, these plots were thwarted by law enforcement with tools needed to keep us freedom-loving Americans alive. Yet, the far-left continually preach that these tools are injuring our freedom. Can anyone on this forum show how they personally have been affected by the Patriot Act in a harmful and inappropriate way? Conspiracy theories are cute, but they don't measure up to true facts. Finally, would the CC times ever publish these type of article? Censorship, anyone?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335498,00.html
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 499
But first, you must consider the source. Always consider the source. Fox News is neither fair, nor balanced. Despite persistent and consistent claims that the main stream media chases an overtly liberal point of view (and, indeed, many individuals employed within the mainstream media are overt liberals), even high school journalism students can objectively identify times and instances when the mainstream media is expressing bias and when it goes out of its way to present both sides of an issue (and, in complex stories, all sides). What it takes a little more perspective to recognize is that the mainstream media is neither liberal or conservative ... it is corporate, and expresses a corporate point of view in everything it does. That said, and despite major weaknesses and flaws in approach due to that corporate perspective, the mainstream media is somewhat fair and balanced. Contrast that to Fox News, which is unabashedly and shamelessly conservative. There is nothing "balanced" in anything it says. Nor is there anything but pretense in its fairness ... Fox News uses presentation of opposing views as a foil, almost as a straight man, to set up delivery of its punch line.
---> And the punch line consists of pure slanted opinion. "Facts" are used as a high school junior learns to use "facts" to support a thesis in a persuasive essay ... they exist only to "prove" a pre-established conclusion. And the opinions that Fox News support would make Herr Goebbels sit up and smile. They serve only as a mouthpiece and/or an excuse for fascist policies emanating from the ruling Party, whether that Party holds highest office or is in opposition.
---> Because the Republican Party ... the Party of privilege and lawlessness (as applied to corporate crime) ... is currently in power, we hear nothing but arguments favoring the repressive practices of our country's leaders. The idea of a Unitary Executive (thanks, Irving Kristol) is dangerous, my dear. It may provide all sorts of perks and pleasantries when the President shares your political views, but what are you going to do when another Clinton becomes President and decides to use the precedents set by this administration to act above and outside the constraints of Congress? What are you (and Fox News, for that matter) going to do when the President, claiming constitutional authority charging her with "defending the country", unilaterally nationalizes the Insurance Industry in order to consolidate funding and resolve a full-blown "national emergency" caused by inadequate health care? What would you (and Fox News) say if the evidence that we were overwhelmed by such a national emergency was classified as a state secret (with perhaps subtle hints that a famine or plague was introduced by foreigners seeking to destroy our nation), and the Justice Department ruling that the President had such powers was also classified as secret through "Executive Privilege". And what would you do (and Fox News) if state secret protections required the President to not allow top advisors who came up with the plan to testify before Congress about what they did, when they did it, and even how they did it?
---> Enough said ... I digress.
---> I read the Fox News report about the wonderful job our secret police are doing using secret police methods to round up suspected terrorists before they can do any harm. I even began researching each of the 20 cases Fox News referred to in such glowing terms. I wonder if you did the same, or merely accepted Fox News' assertions that these were all very bad people who deserved whatever it is that they are getting because they planned to do very bad things to Americans. I doubt it, because if you did, you would recognize that almost every one of those "cases" is embroiled in some type of controversy about the methods used to identify and capture suspects; whether or not the suspects intended to actually do anything -- and, in some cases, whether or not they were actually capable of doing anything; whether some of the suspects were not, in fact, set-up and/or entrapped by overzealous prosecutors; and whether or not any of them were actually connected to international, national, regional, or even local networks of terrorism.
---> Now, before you get your panties in a bunch about the horrors of terrorism (etc.) and how so many of us lefty stooges would prefer to see an actual mushroom cloud rising above the city skyline before we were willing to take steps to prevent an act of terrorism, understand that I (at least, and certainly all liberals that I know) am just as worried about the possibility of an attack as are you ... whether it be on the local bus or light rail, at a baseball game, on the bridges across the Willamette River, in my drinking water, or any place else our always paranoid and fearful government has suggested we need to be aware (isn't it nice how our government provides all these great ideas for terrorists ... or would-be terrorists ... to follow-up on if they were so inclined, almost as if creating the climate of fear might lead to self-fulfilling promises). I just happen to think there is a very clear way to monitor and police (and surveil) such possibilities in a way that does not threaten everyone's personal privacy and protection from abusive government actions.
---> And some of the folks in the Fox News list were clearly abused, and quite possibly set up. Granted, there is a fine line between putting an idea in someone's head who never had it until the idea was mentioned versus a person who would do horrible things but can't unless the resources needed became available (which means, to be clear, that at some point beyond FBI interference a person might have stumbled upon the resources on their own). But I have a very hard time with entrapment ... no matter whether the issue is drugs, prostitution, embezzlement or terrorism.
---> I would posit that the cases against the Lackawanna Six, the Paintball Terrorists, Iyman Faris, Shahawar Matin Siraj, and Yassin Aref constituted entrapment and were based on flimsy (at best) evidence. I don't know about others on the list, because I got tired of reading the type of stuff. But don't trust me ... check these things out on your own. Read all accounts, as well ... those who think the suckers were just poor patsies in a political game of fear-mongering and those who feel they got what they deserved. Both are out there, for each case.
---> Beyond checking the information out for yourself, you might also think about this. I suppose if Iyman Faris had indeed succeeded in using a single blowtorch to cut the chains holding up the Brooklyn Bridge, it would have caused chaos, death, and a great toll in human suffering. It is best to avoid such stuff, and to prevent it from happening, if at all possible. But give me a break! Wily Coyote used teaspoons to dig away entire mesas in order to crush the Roadrunner, too.
---> Finally, you asked if anyone has been personally affected by the Patriot Act (why not the Protect America Act, or the Military Commissions Act?) to step up and tell their story. Well, I cannot tell you whether or not I have been personally affected. I have not yet been hauled off to jail, but I do not know ... as few know in these types of situations ... whether tomorrow the FBI will be at my door with questions about a donation that I made, or about a person I was photographed sitting next to at the Oregon Symphony. When that happens, it will be too late for me to tell my story, won't it? Especially if I am made to disappear, as Brandon Mayfield ... also an American citizen living in Portland ... disappeared. His life was severely disrupted and made a mess of by American law enforcement. Or what about Yessin Aref, an Iraqi-Kurd on the FoxNews list of "bad guys" who is essentially locked up incommunicado in Indiana and whose life has taken a decided turn for the worst because of a stool pigeon on the FBI payroll who set him up for arrest. Or how about Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen captured by American secret police while on a layover at JFK in 2002 and renditioned to Syria for a year (remember Syria ... one of the countries we will not negotiate with because of its ties to terrorist groups?), where he was regularly tortured until released back to Canada in 2004? You know, the guy to whom the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police issued a public apology for the role Canadian officials played in this abomination, and then proceeded to resign his post in humiliation? You know, the guy to whom the Canadian government agreed to pay $10.5 million for its part in his ordeal (plus $1 million in legal fees). And you know, the guy whom our President still publicly calls a terrorist and our President continues to insist he had the right to deport to Syria ... the guy still on America's watchlist and who cannot even fly in an airplane that enters US airspace without fear of being arrested again!
---> I realize I am cheating, because I have not yet personally been subjected to such "inconveniences". I guess if I keep my nose clean and don't say something unbecoming about an officious government agent (whether at IRS, DMV, or the US Attorney), I have nothing to fear. Somehow, that doesn't sound like the USofA in which I grew up ... and I grew up in the middle of the Cold War, when we had an equally ambiguous but dangerous foreign enemy that caused some people in power to embark on periodic witch hunts.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 64
Mr. Hays,
As amazing as it may seem, I do not have a detailed knowledge or understanding of the cases that you expound upon. I do, however, have very specific knowledge of where the "corporate" media have gone out of their way to position the "progressive" position in the best light possible and the "conservative" position in as bad a manner as possible. I also have very specific knowledge of occassions where no media source, including Fox News, decided to report on very significant events that would have provided a greater understanding of the successes that are actually occuring in the War on Terrorism. I will state that there is a reason that Fox News is more trusted by the military than CNN or ABC/CBS/NBC, or even MTV. Fox has not yet knowingly and deliberately exposed an ongoing operation, thereby exposing the military to additional risks.
You say that Fox is unabashedly conservative, and I respectfully disagree. Fox is, in my humble opinion, unabashedly commercial, which is why they have such a large percentage of the ratings. The other major media sources are so far over toward the "progressive" point of view that Fox generally wins no awards for some very good reporting. Of course, it is ratings that bring advertising revenue, in other words the bottom line is the bottom line, not how many trophys you can display in the corporate offices.
I am not saying that Fox is "fair and balanced", or that they really provide enough information in their stories to support the slogan "We report you decide". But if one pays attention to CNN and Fox, and adds in some BBC and Reuters, you can actually get a pretty well balanced set of data.
On the subject of the Patriot Act, there are some good items contained in it, but I would be happier if the bulk were tossed out and buried somewhere. We need to hold the line on personal freedoms and resist all attempts to restrain or limit these freedoms. With these freedoms also come increased responsibility and the need for increased vigilance. Our greatest strength is our greatest weakness - our open society and the ability to determine your own path within it. "Progressives" are working overtime to limit our freedoms to just those that they agree with or feel that we should have. As an example, there is a major push to protect us from religion, from firearms, from having to take responsibility for our own healthcare or retirement. I keep coming back to that old Pogo cartoon - "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 499
Excellent post, and points well taken. Just as I may "over-conservatize" the Fox News bureau (and, more importantly, its embedded editorial board), so too might you have "over-progressivized" the remaining mainstream media. All are corporate, and all dance to corporate boards and ... more specifically ... the corporate chain of executive command that answers to a different deity than "truth", "objectivity", or even "integrity". I do not make a habit of watching Fox News. I glance at it every once in a while (I am a inveterate channel surfer) and almost every time the signal comes in, they are talking about some poor blond damsel who disappeared in the Caribbean, OJ, the new disappeared lady with the same name as the one that disappeared in California, or some other tabloid scandal. Seldom do I ever encounter "News" on Fox, except when the local Fox affiliate airs its "local" news (which, by and large, it is not)' invariably, when I come across something from Fox, it is after someone has directed my attention towards it (as jankoski did, in this instance).
---> To be fair, however, I do not watch CNN, CNBC, MSNBC or any of the other major network national news shows, except occasionally and be happenstance. I could not even tell you who the anchors for the various networks are any longer. I watch the local network affiliate news shows, with ABC receiving the most attention ... but I am not wed to any, and can go days without watching any. Here, to the best of my knowledge, is the typical 30 minutes local news broadcast, seen almost anywhere in the USofA:
---> (1) Ten minutes of local news in the following descending order: a great deal of murder, mayhem, robbery, fires, disaster and other things to fear with the occasional bit about local politicians or events (if pertinent); ---> (2) Commercial break ---> (3) Three minutes of national news: we are now in an election cycle, so there will always be something to say about that or some Presidential Event; followed by a litany of disasters and murders and bad things from distant places; ---> (4) Commercial break ---> (5) Five minutes of sports ---> (6) Commercial break ---> (7) Three minutes of Weather ---> (8) Commercial break ---> (9) One minute for human interest, cutesy story or stranger than fiction.
---> So, I watch those things and catch a little while channel surfing. Most news comes from on-line subscriptions and print media. I read, daily (though not always cover to cover) at least two and often all of the following: Oregonian, Contra Costa Times, Washington Post, Townhall.com, Manchester Guardian, Huffington Post (scan to see if anything is worth reading), and The Onion.
---> As to "terrorism" ... there are bad people out there who want to do bad things to us. They are at least as real as the Soviet Union was, once upon a time, or the Real Axis (not a fictitious axis of evil). The latter two, however, possessed very real ways to stage an invasion of this country (had they had the material means and resources to do so, which I don't think they ever did), but chose not to (again, because I don't think they possessed the means). In short, our strength contributed to their unwillingness or inability to do so. The current "enemy" has none of the above. It can do damage to us (as it has demonstrated), but it poses nothing of the threat we have faced and stared down in the past. We need to be vigilant, as you point out. Good intelligence and good police work, with the occasional tactical military incursion (as necessary) ought to be more than enough to protect us from those bad guys.
---> We do not need to sacrifice our personal freedoms or the guarantees we have of being protected from an overreaching and abusive government. Such a government remains, as it always has been, a bigger threat to our national security and freedom than any foreign power ever has been ... including the British, the Mexicans, the Spanish, the Russians, the Panamanians (and all South Americans), the Vietnamese, the Koreans and any other nation state you might want to name.
---> You are most correct ... our greatest strength is our greatest weakness. From where I sit, as we officially condone torture (or the threat of torture), eliminate the writ of habeas corpus from anyone, excuse certain classes of business from violating our privacy, politicize those charged with enforcing the laws of the land equitably and objectively, and so on ... the more closely we begin to resemble those against whom we claim we are protecting ourselves against.
---> I do disagree with your contention that "Progressives are working overtime to limit our freedoms to just those that they agree with or feel that we should have." Protecting us from religion, and the establishment of one particular set of religious beliefs, is extremely important. Most religious people are not zealots ... but some religions have historically demonstrated the acute ability to violently take apart those who do not abscribe to the proper movements or idolatry. Firearms and protection from them is not just a progressive position, and you know you are oversimplifying the argument there. A true progressive, incidentally, honors the right of responsible people to possess firearms, though they may not agree about what constitutes a "reasonable" type of weapon to possess. As to taking personal responsibility for health care and retirement, that is code for dumping on those less fortunate than others and for preserving the privileges of those often times possessing nothing more honorable (and thusly "deserving" of healthcare) than good luck or bitter self-interest. All four of those topics deserve a thread of their own (and I believe they exist somewhere on this mess of a bulletin board, I just can't find them).
---> Finally, you might wish to look up even the few names that I mentioned in the previous post. None take a whole lot of time to find (as most are clear examples of egregious behavior and mismanaged justice). If you can only do two, do Aref and Arar.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 58
if they're a conservative source, and conservatives are predominately supportive of the war in Iraqi?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336730,00.html
The facts speak louder than words...
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 499
Until someone else steps forward to join you, in my experience you are the first person on the planet to suggest that Fox News is not a conservative source of news. Publishing a six paragraph, sixteen line announcement of a story that another publisher is about to release that implies a position not in line with the propaganda spread by the current administration is not an example of deep, objective, investigative reporting. I do not have time to do this little experiment, but I bet even a cursory search of Fox Archives would reveal at least 10 instances where one of it's "you decide" talking heads announced such a connection indeed did exist! And this despite the fact that even undisciplined folks like myself were writing letters to editors of newspapers in 2002 denying that such a link was even possible.
---> Alert
---> I DID a cursory search. I went to the FoxNews website and entered the following parameters in the search box: "bid laden hussein link" I got seventy-two (72) hits of various degrees of relevance. The newer reports, transcripts, interviews, and news stories are all hedged because it is generally accepted today that the intelligence was at least fuzzy (intelligent people insist it was cooked) and there actually was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden; these recent reports, then, are heavily laden with admissions that most of this stuff is now known to not be true. However, what I find interesting are the stated and unstated message(s) of the comments ... usually to the effect that even if we didn’t know, we thought we knew and we were acting on the “best” intelligence the world had to offer at the time … gosh shucks, what else could we have done? (and never ever mentioning that there was conflicting evidence that was simply dismissed, ignored, and/or purposefully buried). The first couple of pages go through that routine.
---> What is more interesting is to go to the end of the list and read them backwards, pretty much in chronology. What you see is a concerted effort to shape public opinion. Fox provided a platform for otherwise "noble" and illustrious leaders -- the ones we trust to speak truth to us and to make decisions based upon the best possible decisions -- to plant seeds in our heads that shaped our opinions. We trusted Fox, and we trusted those serving us in high office. They failed our trust ... either because they were really stupid (not too likely), incredibly naive and gullible (also not too likely), caught up in the moment (more possible), or had some other, hidden agenda which they worked on us like the Man Behind the Curtain. I dare you to read those reports, knowing what we know today, while holding on to a suspicion that quite a few of the folks being interviewed (and the mouthpieces lobbing them softballs to hit us over the head with) new exactly what they were doing, what ideas they were planting firmly in our collective heads (so strong, in fact, that people still write agonizingly over the reality of Mohammad Atta), and what actions they were luring us into. On purpose!
---> It's pretty darning, I have to admit.
---> In case you don't read them, I have pulled a few to a file on my hard drive, and will post them periodically to this site. For your enjoyment. And education.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 499
Interesting and relevant bit of news across all the mainstream media last night (including Fox ... I checked to see if they would report it): The Pentagon released an exhaustive study based on thousands of documents seized by US troops during the invasion and occupation of Iraq which concludes that there was NO link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The report also concluded that Saddam Hussein used terrorist tactics during his regime ... but against his own people. He did not export terrorism, and only nominally supported terrorist activities that occurred elsewhere.
---> Let's see: ... no weapons of mass destruction ... no nuclear or biological weapons program in operation ... no connection to al-Qaeda ... no connection to the September 11 attack against our nation ... no imminent threat of an attack against our nation ....
---> Looks like the only so-called legitimate reason left to invade Iraq was so that the U.S. could unilaterally decide that the leader of a sovereign foreign nation should be overthrown and executed. The legitimacy of that excuse to go to war seems pretty flimsy against the backdrop of international law, now doesn't it. It sort of stands in sharp contrast to the brutal dictators that we do not invade to replace, and in fact many of whom stand as our staunch allies.
---> Meanwhile ... the thing Osama bin Laden most wanted the U.S. to do was to overextend its military by engaging in a foreign war overseas that it could not win. We now know he thought it would be in Afghanistan. We also know that he underestimated our ability ... we almost got him ... so the decision to extend the battleground into Iraq actually lobbed a big fat juicy softball up to the plate for al-Qaeda: (1) diversion of troops and attention to Iraq allowed bin Laden to slip into Pakistan, and (2) the battleground moved to a place where it was even less likely that the U.S. would prevail.
---> Which works like a double-edged sword. We cannot admit that we were wrong (or that Osama bin Laden tricked us and therefore got the best of us), so we must stay to prove we did the right thing. Alternatively (and almost as stupidly), many who know that we were wrong compound the initial gaffe and seek to prolong the fiasco, thinking there is still a chance that we can salvage a "democratic" Iraq that will be our friend and help us fight off the monster we are still shaping. That is not going to happen ... at best, we will create a puppet government of some sort that follows all the rules of countless other puppet democracies we have propped up over the years. On the surface, there might be elections and a few accoutrements or trappings of democratic systems, but the people of Iraq will be no more free or self-determinate than are the people in our good ally states of Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or any of the emirate states (Kuwait, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Oman, and so on).
---> And the third alternative ... just throwing up our hands and walking away ... is a pretty sad choice, as well. In short, we are now in a lose-lose situation while the forces of terrorism grow on a daily basis. Critics are correct to state that we are in much greater danger today than we were in early 2001.
---> And just think, while the economy and financial institutions that have been running this shell game melt down (somewhere in the vicinity of $11 trillion in bad debt is ever so close to hitting the fan), there is still a $3 trillion unbudgeted bill coming due on the War itself. And this enormous mountain of debt that this President has managed to amass was all done at the same time he was cutting taxes for the rich and famous. Whatever tax relief I was supposed to receive never seems to have materialized ... and all I know is that nothing in my income has increased, but everywhere around me the cost of everything else has doubled or even quadrupled.
---> If you are a Republican (or a FoxNews cheerleader for the rise of the corporate state), times couldn't be better ... if they can just stave off the collapse for less than one more year, they can then turn around and blame the Democrats for everything.
---> The sad thing is, people will believe them!
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 64
I am going to need a lot more convincing that there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. The issue that will need to be overcome is the fact that I was present in Salman Pak when we captured about 50 non-arabs (African and East Europeans) who self identified as Al Qaeda. Some of them stated that they had only been there a short time, but some clearly stated that they had been there for up to two years. I have also not seen this news item, or the report. I did make some note that the news media splashed across the world that the 9/11 report stated that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda several years ago, when in fact what was stated was that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and the attacks on the World Trade Center. I will seek out teh report to see what it states, as I do not trust the US news sources to correctly parse these reports.
On the point of the WMDs, please don't lat pass into unconciousness the fact that on the eve of the US invasion of Iraq, Dr. Hans Blix reported to the UN Security Council that he wanted more time to find the weapons and facilities that he was sure were there. He was against the use of force, but believed that the weapons were in fact there somewhere. As such, it is a bit disingenuous to repeatedly state without qualification that the threat of WMD did not constitute a legitimate threat. In legal terms, if one is placed in reasonable fear of injury, that person has been assaulted by the individual who has placed them in that position and is allowed to use reasonable force to defent themselves. We can legitimately discuss whether or not we used excessive force in defending ourselves, but I do not see the clear cut point of no reason to do so.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 499
I am going to need a lot more convincing that there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let me help you. Start with this typically leftist interpretative site. The title of the story, dated March 11, is "Pentagon Study of 600,000 Iraqi Documents Finds No Link Between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein". You can find it at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336730,00.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Or how about this one? Granted, it comes from ABC News, so probably is questionable. But maybe what it has to say will give you cause to pause. The story, dated March 12, 2008, is entitled, "Pentagon Report on Saddam's Iraq Censored?" You can read it yourself at http://blogs.abcnews.com/rapidreport/2008/03/pentagon-report.html, but the lead paragraph says it all: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"ABC News' Jonathan Karl Reports: The Bush Administration apparently does not want a U.S. military study that found no direct connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to get any attention. This morning, the Pentagon cancelled plans to send out a press release announcing the report's release and will no longer make the report available online."-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In fact, the only way you will be able to get the report, yourself, will be to request it, in writing, from the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia. They will then mail you a copy of the report on CD (will they keep a list of people who request the document, you think?). An executive summary of the report, prepared by Pentagon staff and mailed to media outlets before the plug was pulled on Wednesday, can be found here: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Saddam%20and%20Terrorism%20Redacti... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As to the presence of foreign al-Qaeda agents in Iraq prior to March of 2003, I find it highly unlikely. If you have credible information to the contrary, you might wish to communicate it yourself directly to the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk about the non-Arabs you captured and interrogated. Here's the low-tech basis for my argument. Saddam Hussein is a secularist dictator who had no truck with imams -- Shi'a or Sunni -- inside Iraq during his entire period of rule. Osama bin-Laden seeks a Sunni theocracy, which leaves little room for a tin-horn dictator. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course Hans Blix wanted more time ... his responsibility was to monitor the Iraqi weapons program and the President of this country would not allow him to do his job. Perhaps he felt there were things out there he just hadn't found ... or, more than likely, he felt there were things out there unaccounted for that he wanted to find to see what Saddam was doing with them. Unaccounted for things (which, it turns out, were not present) are not the same thing as a program producing weapons in such quantity and with a functioning delivery system that they posed an imminent threat. For a different perspective on the same question, read the following transcript of a hostile interview with Scott Ritter, at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62916,00.html
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 174
To think that one could tear down the walls of another’s belief system ( in this case Foxnews) is an exercise that encompasses ones own belief system which may be equally quixotic in thinking of righting the other or the belief that it can be done.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 499
I do not discuss issues with people on this list with the intent of "changing their minds", or their belief systems ... I have been in the change-agent business too long to think such a thing can be done simply with a few essays or well-placed words. Most people who go to the trouble to post messages here are pretty much made up in their minds. No ... I have these conversations, much as I had that extremely long conversation with Brickshooter, to persuade the casual reader, the lurker (as it were) who simply reads the messages and then moves on. I have found ... through concrete feed back on this list (as well as on others where I participate) ... that this strategy is productive.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 174
Indeed your posts are as informative and persuasive as any I have come across and I was way out of line with my snarky critique of your motives for writing as you do. Keep up the good work. Sometimes I may lose track of why we are here and I appreciate your reminding me concerning the casual reader in the audience and how one might in fact actually persuade someone to look at things differently through the process of expanding ones knowledge base and a little critical thinking.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 499
The problems that I see ... at least with this bulletin board in its new incarnation ... is that (1) almost everyone has left who used to be interesting to talk to, and (2) many who remain seem flighty and inconsistent, unable to track a thread and return once they have left a message
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 174
Scott today Friday March 14, 2008 http://kpfa.org/ is conducting a Winter Soldier hearing wherein the Iraqi veterans are testifying concerning the institutional atrocities of the Marine Command as well as individual soldier confessions of acts of atrocities by Veterans Against the War.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 499
... though I saw it advertised at the Huffington Post. War is hell ... especially a war conducted in the streets of cities, towns and villages where the 'enemy' is not uniformed because the 'war' is a civil war complicated by a foreign occupation. The Romans knew the problem well. So did the British. Not to mention the Soviets. Unfortunately, since our leaders seem to think that technology and a hypocritical homage to a philosophy of self-determination will overcome the mistakes made in the past, they are doomed to lead us down the same declining path. Do not for a moment think that atrocities in Afghanistan or Iraq will not be repeated here after the decline of our empire finally comes home to roost. $3 trillion in unaccounted for expenses in the war, combined with $11-13 trillion in bad loans at home are dovetailing to collapse. The Bushies hope they can stave it off until after January 20 of next year. Unless the war ends five years ago and we take that money and use it to prop up the hollow infrastructure of this country, the troops are going to needed here, not over there.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 64
I believe that this new round of 'winter soldier hearings" will go the way of the last one. Specifically, that the allegations will be unsubstantiated, based on ambiguity and unsworn testamony. Once exposed to the light of day and after being subjected to real scruteny and investigation, I do not believe any of the statements that they are making will be substantiated to be true, just like the last one.
Of course, that will not stop people from believing the tall tales and accepting them as truth, largely because these stories reinforce the preconcieved notions that many people have and the only agency capable of actually investigating the claims is part of the US government, and therefore MUST be part of the cover-up.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 499
... on all counts. But just remember, there are still Americans who believe weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq; there are still Americans imagining a mushroom cloud over New York City; there are still Americans who think the toppled statue or the banner on the aircraft carrier really did mean that the "mission" was accomplished. Say it convincingly (and with fervor) a few hundred times before the truth finally filters through, and it is amazing how many people cannot shake the original claim from their heads.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 64
Mr. Hays
We have again reached a violent agreement. I am constantly amazed at the "common knowledge" that is really false. You have named several points that are "common knowledge" for many people, but are not in fact accurate or true. That does not stop them from believing it and the resultant bias prevents people from accurately assessing new information. I can name several points of "common knowledge" that are patently false as well, but are widely accepted. That is the problem with "common knowledge", it is accepted without proof and is nearly impossible to change from the collective memory.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 499
I am not sure what you mean by "violent agreement"? I feel no violence whatsoever. It looks to me like we are in amicable accord. Is there a difference? But in terms of "common knowledge" ... people will believe what they want, aided of course by clever and consciously planned propaganda techniques. When I was is in high school, we were required to take a short unit in social studies about "propaganda" (so we would, ostensibly, be able to identify Communist propaganda when it hit us over the head ... I was in high school when the Cold War was pretty warm). I do not know if such a unit of study is still required, but it ought to be.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 174
On the problem with flightiness: I don’t see the former users as flighty as much as their having a problem with learning something new. The old board was simple and straightforward whereas this board being different is a problem due to the fact that the Rightwing are leery and frightened of change. The simplest example is that most people on this board would agree that war stimulates prosperity and is a simple fact of life. Anyone that is willing to explore other ways of thinking is to be castigated or shunned. So it is with the changes on this forum; if I don’t understand it immediately as comfortable then I’m out of here.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 499
I suspect you are correct. This site isn't that hard to navigate, but there are real limitations on how to enter text and notify folks that you are trying to have a conversation. Most conservatives that I know are more than willing to utilize new technologies to spread their venom ... the ones who won't do so here are simply the stupid ones.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 174
The stupid ones, wow I see that they have stirred your ire. Think of it this way, we can say anything we wish and there is no one to negate our opinions or facts. I am almost ready to believe that the board was changed so as to eliminate public opinion. After all the news media is set up to disseminate propaganda and to have its right wing constituents engage in colloquy with those of diverse opinions counters the news media of influencing the totally misinformed. Those that wish to spew forth informational garbage have left to join the Foxnews blogs where they can be with their own people and learn nothing from those that agree. I almost miss Clayton if that were possible.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 499
... I almost miss Clayton if that were possible. ------------------------------------------------------------- ---> By "stupid", I simply mean those who simply regurgitate (often doing no more than cutting or pasting) what they read from other sources. At least Clayton had a mind of his/her own (I won't go into detail about the [cin]clayton debate) and stuck with a conversation for more than one or two interruptions. I find myself tempted to write increasingly provocative messages just to see if any will respond ... I don't know about you, but I find there is a general drift to the left on these new boards, and more people seem willing to at least make a single comment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---> You will notice, however, that dialogue ... ongoing conversation, discussion, debate ... is essentially gone from this board. To find it where it might still be breathing is almost impossible. It's not how the messages are "threaded" or listed ... I participate on other boards that use a similar structure and it's not too hard to navigate once you figure it out ... it's not that the formatting tools are more primitive than during the ascii era (and even then, hitting "return" on your keyboard almost always guaranteed a line break and a new paragraph). I think it is the simple lack of that old feature that gave you the option of receiving an email notification when someone commented on one of your comments, or even commented in a thread you were tracking. Since this program obviously tracks the threads in which you post a comment, why can't it also generate an automatic email notification? But then, that assumes the makers of this board have directions from the owners of the paper to pay attention to what we say. They went to the trouble to ask for our comments, but apparently no one read(s) them ... and I don't say that because none of the suggested changes have been made. No, I say it because no one replies to any of the suggestions or comments that have been made. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----> That is just plain insulting.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 174
After a while all the denials by Clayton of the Cin part of his name became a case of protesting too much which gave the game away. For him to think that he could slip that one past everyone had to be the epitome of hubris and it accompanying malady. What could we call it, he seemed running scared of CinClayton perhaps it was a bout with idiotic panic and the delusions that accompany?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for this new forum’s neglect of it constituents: Maybe it’s a corporate shot across the bow of further corporate neglect in the way of interrupted basic services such as electricity and water. Those services given when the dollar is really cheap not so far from now may not be as productive. An old Polish saying goes like this: We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us. So it may go with privatized public services and a worthless currency. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps Halliburton could help save the day for the US ratepayer as they’re doing for the Iraqi citizen, which means every worker picks up their government subsidized paycheck goes home and deserts their job as a utility person ‘security reasons’ until they show up for the next paycheck. In the meantime streets run with crap and the people have to bath with high dollar bottled water or die of waterborne diseases because care less corporations have the contracts and are working for the care less ruling class.
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 323
Warhater, Thats a very narrow view of forum posters that have left. Pretty judgemental too. It is broad generalizations that put people into groups and categories that divide us. It's THEM. It's easier to hate THEM than Bill or Bob or Sue. THEM is a big nebulous group that WE don't agree with. THEY must be wrong for US to be right. I think most people fall to the middle. Neither far right or far left. It is the extremes on both sides that polarize, alienate and castigate. Generally those with extreme views are more vocal than those in the middle. Forums tend to be more heavily weighted to those more vocal. It's too bad we don't look for things we all agree on instead of those things we don't. I guess that's just not as interesting. I don't have to agree with you to see your point of view. I also don't have to turn you into a THEM if you don't agree with me.
Peas and Love,-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl: This place got a pool? Ty: Pool and a pond....... Pond be good for you.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 174
If you are referring to them being with their own people well indeed they have very diverse opinions from the opinions of the left and since I haven’t heard from any of them in quite a while it would not be a stretch to think that they have gone to join others whomever and wherever they may be. Perhaps it was a stretch to accuse them of joining there own kind but they have left the room without excusing themselves which allows me a certain amount of room to be displeased. It has nothing to do with placing them as the other, in fact I might go so far as to say that they are the ones placing me in the category of the other since I have not left the room and those with opposing views have. Where did they go unless to less opposing or perhaps even agreeable blogspots; Fox blogging?