When Bad Journalism Gets Worse

What's your opinion of President BO comparing his bowling score to that of a mentally retarded kid or a kid with Downs?

I have always had a few things in life that I couldn't stand. Seniors popping sophmores with towels in the locker room was one. The term "no brainer". Kids being cruel to cats and people comparing their bad performance to "the Special Olympics".

But to be honest this issue is a non-issue. President BO is following form as to being totally over his head in his current job. I am in Orange County at the moment and he has been here the last two days. It is his campaign all over again.

I have heard the "Special Olympics" comparison made before by several people too. It's a very cold comparison made by people who don't think before they speak but I know they don't mean to be cruel towards people in the Special Olympics. However, our president is held to a higher standard. He messed up, he apologized and will probably do some kind of publicity stunt with someone from the Special Olympics to save face and everyone will move on as they should. I know everyone loved to focus on Bush when he'd do something similiarly stupid and nothing productive ever came of that either.

Why have our current journalist not "taken the Obama team to task". As an example Energy Sec Chu recently said that oil prices and Oil policy were outside his domain.

Are those grown up statements from the Energy Sec???? Current Energy Policy is "outside his domain"?

How about the Treasury Sec not knowing what is going on within the Treasury (he has no staff).

An interesting comment was made on "lost" this week that could be useful for the current team. We need to "Think" and not "React". Obama seems to be reacting to everything and not thinking.

But hey, Obama had his ego trip to California and was on the "Tonight Show". Maybe his making fun of retarded children and it not being edited out will teach him to stay focused.

First of all to Justin, I am not a journalist, when are you going to figure this one out. I have no training in journalism. I am a BLOGGER, quit trying to link me to "liberal" journalism. Because it isn't going to stick.

And G5 you come out "crying" about the "liberal" medias attacking of Palin's children? First of all give me a link or something because I don't remember any attacks from the media during the campaign on Palin's children. Secondly you want to talk about attacking, why don't we look at how the conservative media has been attacking Meghan McCain just because she simply called out Ann Coulter for what she truly is. One "talker" called her a plus size model and then denied ever saying it, of course. And by the way where have you been, EVERYONE has been on Obama about his picks. Thanks for playing the game.

As for this whole Special Olympics comment. It was an atrocious comment, but Obama has already apologized for the comment so the story is over. Here's the thing about the general population of Americans, they like to forgive thier politicians for the idiotic things they have said or done. Today the American people don't give a damn about a comment they care about the economy being fixed.

wallismarsh, you are a great example of the American dream. You are a great inspiration to the rest of us hard working conservatives. It's too bad Mike cannot admit that he is a liberal and a volunteer apologist for the ongoing Obama campaing. He apparently has amnesia about anything the Obama campaign does that is it bad or in poor taste, like attacking Sarah Palin daughter....but I guess that never happened...and still isn't.

I still can't fisgure out what draws me here in the first place. I think it must be that I can't wait to see what a half-crocked, idiotic isea he'll come up with next that falls right in line with the liberal agenda and then watch him squirm out of of what he said and then deny he's a liberal. Either Mike doesn't doesn't have 2 brain cells to rub together for warmth or he's bi-polar.

At first I thought it would be a place to shoot political ideas at each other but now it's just a place for Mike to cry for Obama and call the rest of us racists if we don't agree with his socialist agenda.

I remember him criticizing people here when they voiced their opinion about his gay marriage pep rally. I guess we're all just a bunch of old fashion hicks, right Mike? We're just not as progressive as the rest of you liberals. Maybe we think it's wrong and sinful. Maybe I don't want to see what comes after gay marriage and gay adoption....men having sex with young boys movement? What will come next? You know damn well it will escalate into something worse 50 years from now and then all of us who oppose will once again be old fashion hicks that don't understand all you "progressive" people.

Mike! What on earth???

"And G5 you come out "crying" about the "liberal" medias attacking of Palin's children? First of all give me a link or something because I don't remember any attacks from the media during the campaign on Palin's children."

Where WERE YOU during the campaign? You would have had to be in a coma or stuck at the North Pole to miss the vicious attacks on Palin's kids, especially Trig. You are unbelievable! No wonder you're a Democrat. ROFL!!

How much did President Obama spend on his ego trip to California? He fired up the corporate jet appeared on the Tonight Show and made fun of retarded children. What an elegant guy- the same guy who said the US has 57 states, kids on asthma need breathalizers, and that his uncle helped liberate auschwitz even though that was done by the Russians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtI...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbpWonUzl...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV1sxq8mq...

"Also, I find it interesting that those of you that have criticized Obama for the things he has said were extremely quiet during the Bush presidency"

It's also interesting that most conservatives were ominously silent while Bush ran the country with a deficit and racked up almost $5 trillion in national debt during his presidency. But now that Obama is running things, they all of a sudden find their conservative voice and cry that he is "mortgaging our future" and must be stopped.

I don't want the national debt to go up, but accept that it is sometimes necessary. But where were the conservative voices when Bush "mortgaged our future?" And why weren't the liberals louder about it when it happened? I heard a few liberals decry Bush's addition to the national debt as absurd, but they were nowhere near as loud as the conservatives are today about Obama's addition (which, so far, pales in comparison).

"You all like to talk about how us liberals go after conservatives with a vengeance"

In all fairness, they are in the right here. SOME liberals DO go after conservatives with a vengeance. What is scary is how they look at the situation and only see the liberals attacking rabidly. Anytime the conservatives attack they see it as "justified criticism" or "retribution for liberal attacks".

(and you did point this out mike, just thought I would reiterate)

It's also interesting that conservatives use phrases like "It's too bad Mike cannot admit that he is a liberal"

Like it is somehow a bad thing to be liberal? Like he has to admit he has a problem or something? Isn't it just a different point of view, or political ideology?

Mike, I'm glad you call yourself a proud liberal. Because somewhere along the line, conservatives twisted the word 'liberal' to have such a negative connotation that we had to re-brand ourselves 'progressives'. And while I do not agree with everything you stay, I too will declare myself a proud liberal. And I would encourage any and all self-described 'progressives' to do the same.

Hey ed, I wonder what Bush spent flying to the aircraft carrier to proclaim "mission accomplished? Try this link for some really ellegant 'bushisms' http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/...

Remington,

Gallup: Obama approval sits at 65%

RCP Average: Obama Approval at 61.2%

(average includes gallup, Rasmussen, CBS, CNN, NPR, and Pew)

SOURCES:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Wait, you mean that he uses a teleprompter to deliver speeches?!

How could we have not known this!? Why didn't anyone tell me?! My whole world is a lieeeeeee!?!?!!

Seriously, get real. He uses a teleprompter to deliver speeches. Maybe if Bush had done the same, he wouldn't have made so many flubs that got so much play on the late night comedy shows?

Not using a teleprompter doesn't necessarily make you a more genuine and "off the cuff" speaker. And using a teleprompter doesn't make your words any more or less meaningful.

Great oratory doesn't require hard memorization. Great speeches are a combination of elegant writing, empathetic delivery, and an inspiring message.

I seriously don't understand all of this hubbub about the fact that the president uses a teleprompter.

"Great oratory doesn't require hard memorization. Great speeches are a combination of elegant writing, empathetic delivery, and an inspiring message."

To bad Obama's speeches don't have any of these characteristics:(

Oh, the first paragraph is a verbatim from (http://www.mccookgazette.com/blogs/1235/entry/25930/) without re-phrasing or adding anthing of my own.

while we're at it then, maybe mike could provide a link whereby we could check his assertion that O'Reilly denigrated a rape victim some time back. I watch O'Reilly frequently but I apparently missed that segment. Perhaps mike heard the comments on his own; I would be interested in knowing that.

It seems that Guillermo has beaten me to the punch. Apologies for the redundant info.

"nice responses but, of course, nothing from mike. and - media matters? you have GOT TO BE kidding me"

I understand that you would consider Media Matters to be a biased source, as it is a self-described "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media"

(Which is one reason I did not cite any of it's analysis of the matter, but simply O'Reilly's quote itself.)

However, you cannot question the authenticity of the quote, as the page has a media link that plays the actual audio of the radio show.

I cannot find any transcripts of O'Reilly's show on his website. If I could, I would link them as source material. But the actual AUDIO of the clip should suffice. Shouldn't it?

Doodle,

I wasn't asking you to put your 'stock' anywhere. I simply could find no other source for the quote than media matters, and I don't like to provide quotes without sources. I was never trying to argue the validity or bias of MediaMatters.org, simply the actual quote that O'reilly said.

But since you bring it up...

As for my sources, I typically listen to whoever is convenient and give them the benefit of the doubt from the beginning. And I only consider the source spurious once I have heard consistent distortions and/or outright falsehoods. And despite the fact that I consider them spurious, I will still listen to them (I will just be overly skeptical of their presented facts). I don't watch much cable news, but when I do, it is probably about equally Fox News (Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly) and CNN.

I especially try to listen to the right-wing pundits, because I want to challenge my own perspective on the world. It would really do me no good to listen to left-wing pundits, other than to give me a sense of satisfaction about my existing views.

But I have yet to see/hear an argument that is sufficient to make me change my stances and positions. I always remain open to the idea that my position is not the most rational one, but until I am convinced otherwise, it is the position I will hold.

I do not support all of O'Reilly's ideas. By the same token then, do you support all the points and ideas expressed by mediamatters, moveon, huffington post, dailykos, etc. etc.?

I was attempting to draw mike out but you make his points for him. I'm sure he will respond eventually. I am sure he can cut and paste your links; by the way, which he finds so abhorrent. You will believe your news sources and I will believe mine.

G5,

"For instance, do you find it was in the best interests of freedom, liberty, and America to promote a "fairness doctrine" to violate 1st Amendment rights and basically shut down talk radio with with new rules and regulations?"

I have never stated that I support the fairness doctrine, nor do I currently support the fairness doctrine. Don't assume that I have specific positions just because I am a liberal. MANY liberals don't agree with the fairness doctrine and don't want to see it reinstated. And the democrats have shown no serious effort to have it reinstated. In fact, the only time I hear about the fairness doctrine nowadays is when conservative talk show hosts complain that the democrats are going to bring it back.

"Do you believe that Obama running for the highest office in the land should have sealed records, when other government people, and military, must submit to background checks by the FBI in order to get a "Top Secret" security clearance, and prove where they were born with original documents?"

You are here referring to one specific person in the democratic party, while my statement was in support of the liberal political ideology (which is not always best served by the democratic party). Even if I thought this was a valid criticism, it would only be criticism of one man, not the liberal political stance. Obama may be the leader of the Democratic party, but that does not make him the figurehead of liberalism (there really isn't one).

Despite the fact that this is not a criticism of liberalism, I will respond anyway,

Yes, many of Obama's records are sealed to the public. Many of my friends have top secret clearances, their records are sealed to the public as well. While I beleive that we should know as much as possible about a candidate, there are boundries of privacy that must be maintained. It's Obama's choice if he does not want his medical records to become public knowledge. It's also your choice not to vote for him because he kept those records private.

Having helped people go through the background check process, I am convinced that the rabid media scrutiny does a MUCH better job of dredging up past transgressions than a top secret background check.

And the assertion that Obama was born outside of the US and is not a legal citizen has been debunked time and again by sites like snopes.com and factcheck.org, as well as dismissed from courtrooms over and over again. It's beginning to sound more like an unrealistic conspiracy theory than an actual accusation of wrongdoing.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/bir...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/cit...

"Do you believe that using proven faulty economic remedies for the economy should be used, even though they were seriously wrong every time they were tried before?"

No, and I don't necessarily agree with Geitner's economic plan 100%. And again, you are attacking a specific administration, not liberalism itself. MANY liberals are unhappy with the current economic plan. Paul Krugman has been a particularlly vocal liberal opponent to it (thinks it's not 'liberal' enough). The current Geitner plan consists of little more than a re-tooled Henry Paulsen plan. And while I am optimistic, I do not necessarily think it is the best possible plan.

Do not assume that just because this is the "Obama Plan" it's the plan that all liberals want. Many liberals believe that it is time to nationalize the banks (at least temporarily). There are MANY types of economic liberalism ranging from classical liberalism to neoliberalism to democratic socialsim. I think that my views on economic liberalism are too numerous to go into detail here, but here are a few of my positions.

-I believe in free markets. I think that free trade is generally good for the economy and good for societies. However, there are some instances where "fair trade" is more equitable and should be considered as an alternative.

-I believe that the government has an important role to play in the economy to ensure stability and prosperity. That regulation of industry is necessary in many cases to ensure the public welfare.

-Compeltely free markets are inherently unstable. Government non-intervention in the economy DOES produce economic growth and prosperity. But what it sacrifices is economic stability. There is an important balance of interventionism and non-interventionism that must be maintained to achieve tempered economic growth while still supplying stability.

-I believe that there are some services that require a permanence, stability, and quality that the free market is often unable to provide effectively, and that the government should have a high degree of involvement (if not control) of these services. (e.g. electricity, heat, communication lines, clean water, clean environment, healthy food, healthcare, etc.)

"Do you believe that American sovereignty is not important and we should join and fund global communities that are against our interests and fraught with enemy third world human rights violators pointing fingers at us?"

I am unable to respond with specifics, because you have not provided specifics. But generally, I think that we should be involved with most (if not all) world communities. We live in a global society, whether we like it or not. And refusing to deal with (or even acknowledge) countries that don't share our values accomplishes nothing. They will continue to not share our values, point fingers, and commit human rights violations. Only by engaging with these countries can we excert influence. Democracy cannot be properly spread by the sword (or by ignoring other countries). These ideas can only be spread effectively by sharing our culture with other countries through trade and other interaction. Also, by strengthening our bonds with countries who DO share our values, we can more effectively pressure countries who don't to peacefully accept democracy and social justice.

"Why is it wrong to water-board a terrorist to save an American city, especially if in contains your loved ones? Making up rules against your own defenders, when you don't have to suffer the consequences, is absurd."

You pose a question here about water boarding to save a city. To my knowledge, this specific incident has never occured. That is, we have not been in a position where we KNOW a terrorist has knowledge of an impending attack on a major american city. We may have THOUGHT the terrorist MAY have had simliar information. But then, where does it end? Why not torture all "enemy combatants" for information? Isn't there a chance that any ONE of them knows something? And no matter how small that chance, isn't it better to be safe than sorry? Why aren't we picking up and torturing anyone from Iraq?

No. It is torture. And torture is illegal. Torture is cruel and unusual punishment, which is specifically forbidden in the constitution. Also forbidden by the UN Conventions against torture (which we signed). Also forbidden by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In fact, after WWII we convicted multiple Japanese soldiers for waterboarding captured soldiers. Unjust acts committed against the unjust do not become just. I believe that it is our responsibility to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and to prosecute terrorists through the existing legal system established by the US constitution.

"Making up rules against your own defenders" is how we keep our defenders in check. The military (and president) do NOT get to have unilateral power to do whatever is necessary for our security. That is not how our country works, and is a violation of it's founding principals. More attrocious than torture was the way it was hidden from us by our leaders. As well as the fact that the people being tortured have not been convicted by our (or any) legal system of any wrongdoing. I'm not saying that they are innocent, just that we have a legal system for a reason, and it is not the president's place to circumvent it.

Additionally, I do believe that torture does not necessarily produce accurate results, as detainees will often say anything they can think of to stop the torture. Also, it weakens America's stance in the world as a moral and just country, upsetting our allies and embittering our enemies.

I like this quote, althought I'm sure you'll lambast me for using such a "liberal source".

"If you don't stick to your values when they're being tested, they're not values: they're hobbies." -Jon Stewart

"I should ask myself if other people under the same circumstances as mine would be correct in doing the same thing in the same way as me. If not, I shouldn't do it. "

EXACTLY! The terrorists believe that torturing and executing prisoners will help them "win" this war. You believe that torturing prisoners will help us "win" the war. They are in the same moral circumstance as we are. Are they correct in torturing captives or incorrect? If they are not correct, then we shouldn't do it.

"Also, using a hierarchy of values indicates that saving human lives is more important than the shock and discomfort of a terrorist's non lethal water-boarding. "

The objection isn't about what happens to terrorists. The objection is about what happens to US when we debase ourselves by commiting that crime. The objection is about betraying one of the principals our country was founded upon. The objection is about what it does to our values, our spirit, and our standing in the eyes of the world.

mea culpa G.I. I am gratified that you peruse conservative sources as well. Lately I have even checked some items on the liberal sites that I cited; however, I still dont like them. Probably the biggest reason I have little use for Mikes posts (and I have some dismay about yours)is his continual bashing of the previous administration. Yes, they had faults, in some cases large ones, but I believe the current administration does also.

A large pet peeve I have is BOTH sides complaining about using each others tactics.

wow G5,. thats a hard one, hmmmmm. Oh, I know, how about the bible. Would Jesus waterbord?

I will not let my standards and morals be set by others. I refuse to lower myself down to their level, thats one of the things that seperates us from them.

I vowed to stop reading this board, and I may yet. If I do, one last point. While not condoning O'Reillys disparages of ANYONE, I would be interested if you all decried the treatment of Tony Snow when he passed. I refer specifically to LAT 07/12/08, Pattericos Pontifications.

Yes, the responders are haters, and, yes, O'Reilly is a commentator. Does it make a difference where the garbage comes from?

I may have made mis-statements; I do not recall defending O'Reillys statements. If I did so, I will accept my thirty lashes. I still do not believe mike takes the time or effort that G.I. and jhat do to research their responses. And I will also admit that I do not; like mike, my opinions are formed by the news sources that I use.

One of the worst administrations? I am not sure and I am not convinced that anyone will know for some time. I will not be here to see it, but only time will tell how the Bush administration is treated by history.

The taxpayers would be ahead if we just hired cheerleaders to follow Obama around to praise, adore and to scream YES WE CAN. His need for constant worship is sickening.

Woah Justin. Calm down.

" I'm not a huge fan of George Bush's fiscal policies or the war in Iraq, but worst president ever? It's obvious people are not into history these days. "

I was not saying that I thought he was the worst president ever. I was citing a poll done by the History News Network that showed that current historians viewed his presidency unfavorably. (An opinion of historians that I have heard from multiple sources) I was simply trying to build on what Doodle Bug was saying with my own opinion and sources.

You provide many references to Presidents who you obviously think have done a worse job than Bush. I may even agree with some of them. But, our opinions are not very meaningful in this instance, because the discussion was about how history would view his Presidency. I am not a historian, and neither are you (to my knowledge). You and I are not going to be writing the history books, they are. And that is what my point was in reference to.

"If you buy into all the lying to us for oil BS..."

I don't think anyone made that accusation in this comment thread. But I personally don't believe it, as we haven't really seem to have OBTAINED any oil from our invasion of Iraq.

"this new administration doesn't even want to call them terrorist...they're foreign combatants now"

In case you missed it, President Bush is the one who created the legal status and modern term of "enemy combatant" with the powers granted to him by congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF). President Obama recently published a policy to discontinue the use of the term. Though he has yet to change the legal status of those detained.

No you're right, I am not a historian, just a history buff. I cannot write a book about any part of history, even the history of Nebraska which I took several courses on while at U of Nebraska.

And I wasn't actually accusing you of saying "war for oil," every damn democrat I ran into on the street that wanted to talk politics during Bush's war said that same exact thing. They heard it on CNN or HLN one day and boy they were all singing along with Cindy Sheehan.

It's frustrating/saddening to me that so many people would actaully think that a decent man would send young men off to be killed for his oil buddies. That's just pure stupidity/ignorant thinking.

I don't and won't ever believe that Obama would send anyone off to be killed for his own monetary/political gain. I know he's a better person than that...he's a family man. Not to say he's not trying to destroy capital wealth and gradually insert government control over our entire lives is another story.

As far as history goes, that's in the past. It doesn't really matter what historians believe about Bush.

What matters now is how much government control do you actaully want over everything?

Justin,

I would also point out that I think that this particular Christian hypocrisy is a good thing (to an extent).

Over 80% of our fellow citizens are Christian. If they all sincerely followed all of Jesus's teachings, we would have practically no military and no national defense strategy. I think that we absolutely need both of those things. So I am thankful that most Christians are hypocrites in this respect.

Guillermo, I don't know what country you are currently living in but your assesment of federal intervention is as assinine as it is unrealistic.

The main reason most of our consumable products are made overseas is federal control in the US...mostly the EPA. We all want a clean Earth, don't get me wrong. But the reason we have to have everything made in China is that they don't give a rat's ass about polluting their own country to the point of people dying. They may just now start seeing the damage they've done.

The fact that they don't have EPA, miniumum wages, OSHA, etc have led to the overseas manufacturing. Not to say this is not needed, but Americans have been brain washed by Wal-Mart into thinking that we should have falling prices everyday even though, there is always some sort of inflation and the increased cost in doing business of any kind in this country. Just start up a business and you'll know what I'm talking about.

What you are describing is what Cuba and Venezuela have. If it's so damn good why don't you go live there. You need to check out some facts on the amount of government spending vs. GDP and try telling me without me laughing my a** off that we don't have enough government intervention.

You yourself I think have agreed that Washington is mostly an unchecked system and there are no limits or control over what they can't do. Why the hell do want crooked, power hungery politicains in charge of your entire life.

You mest really want someone there to wipe you and feed you. I'm sorry but I can do that by myself.

Guillermo,

How can say this other than, wow you pompous ass. I guess because my fingers can't keep up with intelligent conservative thought; you must be much smarter than me.

Forgive me if I don't believe for one second that your choice of big words makes you any more intelligent than anyone else here. I've worked under some people in the past that couldn't figure out how to get out a bathroom, that used some pretty slick words!

I never defended these businesses, nor did I advocate the their circumnavigation of US policies. I don't however advocate the type of business that we have today that has been created by the philosophy of Wal-Mart which is cheaper at any cost. I am just in actual shock that there is anyone in this country that believes are problems are not enough government. You saying these things is like me hearing someone trying to tell me the sun has always come in the west, it was my mistake the I thought it came up in the east. I just don't even know how to reply to what you've stated. It's absolutely absurd!

I don't care what you say or how passionately you say that I'm your old out-of-touch buddy. You are wrong. You are just part of a vocal MINORITY just like special interest group. Your big government will not sustain itself as it runs out of capital and cannot secure more debt funding. Eventually we'll come back to conservatism once the uprising against socialism takes its course.

I don't where you came from or got your education, but it sure must have come with a lot of indoctrination.

I however, managed to get in and out of a fine university with my Dean's list award in my hand along with my Bachelor's Degree in Agricultural Sciences without having to carry with me the misleading baggage of some loonie leftist commie professor. I feel for you Guillermo, but you need to get over it...this sure as hell is not Venezuela, and it won't be as long as I can do anything about it.

So I'll just take my poor poor spelling and lack of an education as outstanding as your's must be and go back to work to make some capitalist non government handout money.

See ya my communist buddy!

Guillermo,

You're nothing but a louse that wishes to feed off other's success. You wish your eduacation could have been paid for by the government. All that means is that other people like me would have paid for it.

That alone devalues andything you have to say. As for all your assertions about what I believe. It's very amusing to me how quick you are to jump to a conclusion abotu my beliefs. Your assumptions tend to characterize me as a person that does not care about the law, the planet, or worker rights and safety.

That's your fundamental liberal problem. YOU DON'T LISTEN. You haven't been listening the entire time. You're too busy with you little commie fingers typing away trying to turn my words around in order to score points on your communist manifesto-ish blog entries.

Why don't you just shut your mouth and listen. I'll tell you one more time and then I have better things to do than argue with a fool in education's clothing.

-I do not agree with outsourcing jobs. There are 2 big reasons for it. 1. American thirst for more and cheaper consumer goods. 2. The only way to deliver those goods at cheaper proces is to manufacture somewhere they can do it cheaper...less regulation.

I think its hyprocritical of any nation to pinpoint the US for polutions as we have cleaned up out act better than anyone on the planet. China needs to follow our example. They are litteraly whoring themselves out to our consumer (Wal-Mart) demands.

I would love nothing more than to see China regualate pollution, worker safety,etc. Then I think we would see these jobs come back to USA.

I try to only by USA made products these days. I know its made cleaner and American's are at work. Can you say that Guillermo?

I shop at local stores and pay more money instead of going to Wal-Mart. Do you do that Guillermo? I believe in value, not the bottom dollar. I go where I get good service and a great products, not where it costs less.

If we are going to continue to be a free nation and a great one, it won't come from the government, it never has. What has always made us great is our toughness and desire to be better. Anyone in business has to make a profit. Too many people these days, just like liberals that think that our government should raise us and care for us iunstead of our families...like you Guillermo; they also think us buinesses should do something for nothing to help them save money.

If you really believe Wal-Mart for example is saving you money for your own good you are foolish and naive. There are making a profit by reducing the costs of their goods and constantly imporving their efficiency. If this means that 95% of what they sell is made in China, than so be it. Wal-Mart is a hugely successful company that has just made billions upon billions for it's owners.

They don't care at all about your life and saving you money, it's just a marketing gimmick and it works. I have people tell me all the time that you can't beat a $100 lawn mower from Wal-Mart, you just throw it away every couple of years and buy a brand new one.

I myself own a $700 John Deere push mower. Funny thing about it is that I'll still have this mower in 20 years. I could have spent a lot of money on Wal-Mart mowers over the years if I weren't very smart. You see in the long run , the cheaper crap COSTS you money, it doesn't save.

One thing I look at all the time is that Wal-Mart and big box stores have been around makeing our consumer products cheaper for about 20 years now. Are we any better off now than we were 20 years ago? What is the national savings rate now compared to 20 years ago? I actually think we're worse off.

What I'm saying is that here you guys are and othe liberals are telling us Americans that its our fault for all this and all we need is more government. It won't solve anything, in fact it will only worsen our situation. If want to go have a war with someone on this, go to China. Make them clean up their crap! Make them clean up the planet as we have been doing.

Make all the nations of the world clean up the air and the water. Why are we always the targets? How much time has the environment saint Al Gore spent in China with his message.

If you are not proud of this country and only want to see us become communist state of misery like Venezuela, then I wish you would just leave. Leave it to us who want to be free and proud.

And I'll tell you something else, you can call me anything you want but if you call me a racist one more time I swear to God this is going to get ugly my friend. I have been living around those kinds of people my whole life, forced to listen to more spic jokes and nigger jokes than anyone should have to ever have to stomach. I try to keep my kids away from hearing it and listening to people talk that way and I'm sick of that being thrown around. You had by God better watch your mouth and realize pretty quick that you don't know me our who I am. Nothing makes me more angered than you people using the race card or now days the racist card to discredit someone you don't agree with. If you were as smart as you claim to be you wouldn't have to resort to that anyway.

G5,

"As I've shown with these examples, you speak in "Glittering Generalities", logical fallacies lacking specifics. Reading your explanations are much like Rorschach spots, or interpreting clouds. Who could reject "fair" or "prosperity"? LOL"

You accuse me of being too vague and over generalizing.

Did you miss the part where I said:

"I think that my views on economic liberalism are too numerous to go into detail here"

So what about my post tricked you into thinking that I was going into detail instead of generalizing? I didn't think anyone wants me to delve into the gritty specifics of my views on the economy, as my comments are long enough as it is.

"The term "fair trade" is ambiguous, and is meaningless in that it's up to the interpretation of those using the term."

If it's too ambiguous for you, look up a definition:

"Fair Trade is a trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers -- especially in the South. Fair Trade Organizations, backed by consumers, are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness raising and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional international trade. Fair Trade products are produced and traded in accordance with these principles -- wherever possible verified by credible, independent assurance systems."

Source: European Fair Trade Association.

Essentially, fair trade involves making trade agreements that emphasize equitable prices, as well as social/environmental standards in relation to the production of goods.

And if I was too vague on my position of government intervention in the economy, I will make it more clear.

Government non-intervention (or minimal intervention) in the economy CAN create fantastic economic growth. This is the view that most conservatives seem to espouse. But while it does create market growth, it is also responsible for market crashes. The market over-inflates itself and pops. This is a natural process that will eventually be corrected. However, the point at which it pops is a depression, and while it will be overcome eventually, the people suffer in the meantime.

Keynesian Economics asserts that government intervention in the economy is necessary, in order to forcibly "pop" the market before it gets to big (by increasing taxes and reducing spending), and then ameliorating any ensuing recessions/depressions by increasing spending and decreasing taxes). This is of course, a gross oversimplification of Keynesian economics But it is my general take on economic matters. (is it OK if I don't go into specifics, or will you cry "logical fallacy" again?).

"Consider this current challenge to the illegal Obama presidency"

"An ex-military officer"

And is you point that ex-military officers can't be conspiracy nuts?

There has already been a case contesting his citizenship that was initiated by Gregory S. Hollister, a Ex-Air Force Colonel. It was thrown out of court.

Here is a page published by an ex-Navy serviceman that contests the moon landing as a hoax.

http://www.metatech.org/A06/moon_landing...

The case you are referring to will be thrown out of court, just like the SEVERAL other cases that have come before it, including 3 that were refused by the Supreme Court.

"Obama did not, and has not, supplied the necessary records"

Not according to the law. An abstract copy of his certification of birth "short form" has been released to the public (and independently verified as authentic by multiple organizations). And the director of the Hawaiian Dept. of Health has verified that the state has his original certificate on record. He has legally met the requirements to prove his natural citizenship

"This issue will not go away."

Neither will the people contesting the moon landing. There will always be people who believe in conspiracy theories. That doesn't give them any more credence.

"I would accept under similar circumstances (Categorical Imperative) for myself, including Water-Boarding, if I were preparing to mass murder people to impose tyranny, revenge, and oppression."

I will answer you with your own words....

" logical fallacy, because you are prescribing the motives of the terrorists as if you could get in their heads"

You have no idea what your mindset would be if you thought these things, so you are prescribing the motives of your hypothetical terrorist self, which does not exist, so you cannot know its motives.

"Also, after you parsed Immanuel Kant's "Categorical Imperative", one could not recognize it. "

If by "Parse" you mean "analyzed the sentence", of course I did. I followed the definition of it as you YOURSELF stated. If you are saying that Kant's categorical imperative provides a justification for torture, I am afraid that it is you who have twisted its meaning, not I. And I am certainly not alone in my analysis.

See: Torture Interrogation of Terrorists: A Theory of Exceptions (With Notes, Cautions, and Warnings)

by Major (USAF) William D. Casebeer, Ph.D.

Dr. Casebeer makes an interesting case about torture, stating that it is in violation of Kant's Categorical Imperative, but allowed as the exception to the rule under extreme circumstances. This is a more utilitarian view that could be related to John Stuart Mill's "Greatest Happiness Principal."

Of course, the "ticking time bomb" scenario is always put forth by apologists like yourself. It does present a deep emotional appeal (a logical fallacy). However, I will point out again. We have no evidence that a "ticking time bomb" scenario ever occurred during the recent tortures.

Even from a utilitarian perspective, torture does not seem effective. It stirs up anti-American sentiment among our enemies and allies alike, engendering hatred around the world. But at least it gets us useful intelligence on insurgents and terrorists, right? Actually, in many cases, no.

It came out this week that the information given up by Abu Zubaida during torture was patently false. This was the shining example pointed to by so many apologists. We retrieved so much information from this man during torture, that it had to be worth it. The only problem was, it was all made up. The only meaningful information we retrieved from him was from BEFORE he was subjected to waterboarding. Everything he said afterwards was fabricated to get the interrogators to stop drowning him. No plots were foiled based off of his torture confessions, and all leads quickly dried up. Countless man hours and dollars were wasted following false leads.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

"You refer back to Japanese in WWII, and you seem use them as your reference point for justice"

I am referencing it as LEGAL history. I am quite aware of the torturous atrocities committed by the Japanese during WW II. I was not attempting to draw equivalence between their actions and ours (and by asserting so, you have committed the straw man logical fallacy by misrepresenting my argument). What I WAS stating was that WE tried them and found them guilty of (many) war crimes, one being waterboarding. And it is national hypocrisy us to claim it is legal and justified, after we tried and convicted someone else for the same offense.

"Sacrificing American lives due to your puffed up feelings of moral outrage is appalling, to say the least."

We could make the argument here about which saves more lives, torturing or not torturing. Certainly, torture CAN glean useful information from prisoners, though we have not seen evidence that this benefit has been realized. We only have the word of the previous administration that it was necessary and beneficial (given your distrust of the current administration, you must respect my distrust of the previous one) .

Conversely, we can look at the anti-American sentiment it has aroused around the world. How many terrorists has it helped recruit? How many allies has it alienated? You see, we might need their help, and if they aren't there, their absence might "sacrifice American lives" as well. How many prisoners have given up false information (like Abu Zubaida) that has wasted resources on false leads? Resources that could have gone to save lives instead of chasing the lies of a man who would say anything to make them stop torturing him.

"Your distorted feelings about morality lacks substance and authority. "

Your comfortable making the assertion that I have no moral substance after reading a few blog posts? Because I disagree with you on torture? That is a bold claim. And I am curious as to which moral "authority" you claim to have that is so much better than mine. Are their universal truths somewhere that I am not privy to?

" I wouldn't presume to accept Biblical instructions from the exoteric."

Nor would I presume to preach complicated theology to you. But this matter really doesn't seem complicated in relation to Jesus's teachings. But if there was ANYTHING in the Gospels OR in the New Testament that you interpret as justification for torture, let me know.

You have also focused your argument on the morality of the issue, and completely ignored the legal aspect of torture. Namely the fact that it is illegal under national and international laws.

(Notice that I asserted that you made several logical fallacies. I am not usually uptight enough to hold Internet debates to this standard, and I hate doing so. I am only trying to demonstrate that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. And that your persisting accusations of "logical fallacy!" are THEMSELVES logical fallacies meant to misdirect the subject so that you do not have to defend a claim or provide a proper counter-argument.)

G.I.

Exactly.

I think it is really interesting to watch what's going on with conservatives in this country. For the last 8 years, we've had crazies on the left saying that Bush was evil, and that he wasn't really president (b/c 2000 election issues), and generally blaming Bush for everything under the sun, even when things were beyond his control. And everyone on the right hated those people, spoke up against them, and called them "Bush Bashers".

(And for the record, I'm no fan of the "Bush Bashers", because their extreme stances undermined the legitimate criticism of President Bush that myself and many other liberals levied.)

But now that Obama is the president, we see so many conservatives become the mirror image of that which they hated so much. They claim that Obama isn't really president. They compare him to Hitler/Stalin and shout "Socialist!". And they generally blame him for everything, even things beyond his control.

They also react to criticism much in the same way the "Bush Bashers" reacted. You give them evidence, they dismiss it as 'biased', and even if you give them evidence from a source they REQUEST, they dismiss it. They claim that their own political views are the views of the majority of the country, despite the fact that the country voted the other party into power. They spout conspiracy theories about how the democrats are conspiring to ruin everything that the country stands for. They talk frequently about revolution, and overthrowing the status quo to "bring back America" (meaning, of course, THEIR version of America).

"Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you."

-Nietzsche