| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82
<weezyl> He swallows the last third of a setence.
<bmc> the guy lied, he should pay the price
<weezyl> sentence. Jeez.
<L0c0> Weezyl: which is funny b/c Jeb speaks so clearly
<Kaliuna> bmc --just like martha stewart ehh -- 6mo maybe
<roygbiv> trompe, obviously Murdoch doesn't micro-manage every news story in every paper of his, but if he has a strong opinion about something, every editor will parrot that view.
<L0c0> hearing Jeb speak during the runup to Wilma, he sounds NOTHING like his brother
<weezyl> Loco - I never had to handle him at all; that's interesting.
<bud``> bmc I agree, although I think Wilson should also be held accountable, he also bent the truth, and if libby is sentanced, the judge should consider the fact that he was played with by the media as a fool, and got tricked
<roygbiv> The media is supposed to have independence and journalistic integrity. It's not meant to be run like a dictatorship.
<yowz||> i agree Loco...jeb told em....get off the ****in welfare lines, take care of yourselves...you've had plenty of enough notice
<weezyl> Is Jeb running for governor again? 'Cause I would think that blaming Floridians for not being prepared enough some days after Wilma would be, y'know, bad juju.
<Kaliuna> yowz -- cept they really didn't think east side would get hit QUITE that bad...
<roygbiv> Places like fox news are provided with 'talking points' for the day, handed down from above.
<bmc> he has very high approval ratings
<bmc> 70%+ heh
<yowz||> weezyl...my brother lives on marco island...they love him
<TimothyW> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051029/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_lebanon_syria;_ylt=Ak1DdKFwDCmGTLnJIg9CrRgLewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--
<weezyl> That's wacky.
<L0c0> i think one question i have now is how does this effect Cheney's credibility?
<trompe> roygibv: I disagree... while editors of Murdoch newspapers may have all supported the war... but it is only parroting Murdoch's view if they all support the war for the same reasons and justify those reasons in the same way.
<weezyl> Interesting.
<bmc> cheney didnt break the law by telling libby
<bud``> L0c0 well, libby is facing 30 years, if cheney was responsible, he will roll over
<L0c0> oh
<L0c0> something VERY VERY intersting I heard today from Cheney
<yowz||> kaliuna...i live in south dakota...we get blizzards..not near as devestating property damage wise, BUT, we prepare for them, alternative heat, power, food for 3-4 days...that's all jeb asked them to do
<L0c0> during his statement in responce to the indictment
<L0c0> "In our system of government an accused person is presumed innocent until a contrary finding is made by a jury after an opportunity to answer the charges and a full airing of the facts."
<Kaliuna> bud -- more than likely it will be 6mo - suspended
<L0c0> which is funny and seems ironic considering what the SC ruled earlier this year in the Padilla "dirty bomber" case
<Kaliuna> yowz -- believe me I know - remember I once lived in northern MN
<bud``> Kaliuna good to hear.. depends on Judge i guess
<bmc> cheney telling libby isnt illegal
<weezyl> Libby's kinda low-hanging fruit; maybe they're expecting him to flip something.
<bmc> if libby told a reporter, that would be illegal
<L0c0> anybody else pick up on that?
<bmc> libby said he heard from the reporters
<bud``> L0c0 oh, the actual law?
<bmc> reporters said no, they heard it from him
<bmc> him was indicted for lieing
<bmc> what does that imply is coming next?
<Kaliuna> L0c0 - ya I did... but figured most didn't
<roygbiv> trompe, oh ok. So you're saying that in the lead up to the Iraq war, if you picked 175 people off the street (even politically informed people), the odds of them all supporting the war would be nothing out of the ordinary?
<CometBaby> Man oh man
<CometBaby> Making movies really eats the memory
<Kaliuna> Evening Comet!
<CometBaby> hey kali :)
<CometBaby> I am creating a movie with Studio 8
<bud``> bmc Libby will have to take the stand now, in a REAL setting, and already facing charges of perjury, depending on the judge, he could very easily take the whole whitehouse down, its unlikely but as determined as people are, who knows
<CometBaby> that ****er eats the memory
<Kaliuna> Comet -- oh I hope you have a LOT of extra memory to use...
<Kaliuna> yup
<CometBaby> yeah I have a gig
<Kaliuna> hmm -- seems Iheard you needed more thanthat for movies
<CometBaby> but after it is finished burning this DVD I may have to reboot to burn some more. lol
<Kaliuna> hmm sticky keys
<CometBaby> just the creation process eats memory
<yowz||> cometbaby, porno?
<roygbiv> I'm not a member of the media like those 175 editors, but doing my own research before the war, I easily ascertained that there was enough doubt from credible sources about 'WMD capacity'.
<Kaliuna> Comet - uhuh sure does
<trompe> roygibv: that's not what I'm saying at all; don't mischaracterise my statement... I'm saying it's hardly a surprise that the editors supported the war... they write for right-wring readers and have a right-wing employer... it's only natural to expect them to support the war. However, their support for the war doesn't mean that they are "parroting" Murdoch's views... people can reach similar conclusions about issues for different re
<CometBaby> yowz .. lol. Yeah .. me in my pj's :)
<CometBaby> j/k
<yowz||> reallyi?
<bmc> bud`` but that means libby was the source of the leak, why else we would he claim he heard it from reporters
<bud``> roygbiv there's a lot more than 175v editors around the world =) and they are all entitled to their own opinion and influences, I think your barking up the wrong tree
<JanetB> the media is right wing??
<roygbiv> trompe, sure, people can reach similar conclusions, but 175 out of 175 intelligent and 'independent' people reaching exactly the same conclusion. This doesn't happen anywhere.
<trompe> JanetB: we're talking specifically about the Murdoch print media
<roygbiv> Look at the senate and the congress for example.
<CometBaby> one of my friends .. her parents had a 40th Anniversary party and she took pix. She asked me to make it into a movie for her.
<JanetB> oh ok
<roygbiv> Even laws that you would question any possible motive for voting against have at least some senators voting against them.
<bud``> bmc if he gets dealt a seriously harsh judge who's likely to throw all 30 years jail at him, he will take every single person in the whitehouse down... its a given
<Kaliuna> Comet -- oh my good luck - you may need to do two burn stuff... in order to complete the task
<JanetB> take the white house down, what?
<CometBaby> gives me a chance to get creative :)
<bud``> bmc im not saying its likely, just saying its possible
<Swigert> hey
<scotfree> the new york post is not a great newspaper. its 90 percent stuff straight off the wire with lots of photos spreads.
<Swigert> doesn't anyone see me???
<Timur> hi Swigert!
<Swigert> doesn't anyone see me???
<Kaliuna> swiggy-- no don't see you -- I just read what you typed
<Timur> ok bai
<Swigert> kali: heh
<trompe> roygibv: what makes you think the newspaper editors didn't personally support the war? they are the editors of right-wing newspapers... what do you expect? that Jane Fonda edits the Daily Telegraph?
<squidink> i dont think i had ever made up my mind as to the question of the WMD, personally i didnt really care. i didnt like the regime, and where as an all out invasion may or may not have been the most efficient method of change, it certainly has been effective. think it was jefferson who said something about liberty and blood...
<Swigert> I like my new laptop
<squidink> Swigert: me too, can i have it?
<Kaliuna> swiggy -- figured you would -- hubby loves his...
<Swigert> squidink: uhhhhhhhhhhhhh sure...sure why not
<roygbiv> trompe, wow, you mean every right winger in America supported sending US troops overseas?
<CometBaby> Kali I've done this before .. it's not that difficult once you do it one time :)
<roygbiv> To wage a 'pre-emptive' war?
<squidink> Swigert: rock on, see i knew it wouldn't hurt to ask.
<roygbiv> That's amazing.
<Kaliuna> Comet -- no - its not that difficult - just a memory hog! :)
<Swigert> kali: took it to school today - that backpack included the laptop and my books - weight a ton!
<L0c0> Kaliuna: i mean, i'm not picking on cheney or anything, but i think it was sorta ironic
<Swigert> squidink: I lie a lot
<squidink> Swigert: me too.
<CometBaby> but you can get very creative with titles and transitions and credits .. especially perfect music
<Kaliuna> L0c0 -- a bit
<trompe> "[11:46] <roygbiv> trompe, wow, you mean every right winger in America supported sending US troops overseas?" || How can you possibly draw this inference from what I said? I told you before not to mischaracterise my statements.
<Swigert> squidink: not as much as I
<bud``> i still dont get what the **** is pre-emptive about a 13 year old war with one side repeatedly violating every article of cease-fire. blows my mind
<roygbiv> Trompe, " what makes you think the newspaper editors didn't personally support the war? they are the editors of right-wing newspapers" What the hell am I supposed to infer from this statement?
<roygbiv> You're telling me that because they were all right wing newspapers that naturally they support waging wars.
<TimothyW-> roygbiv : you are a preemptive IRCER !!! You need to form a committee to generate your talking points.
<trompe> actually I'm not telling you anything; I'm asking you a question. See the question mark?
<bud``> ya'll argue 'media coverage' if u like, i'll examine the official policy
<roygbiv> hehe tim. I am waging pre-emptive war on thoughts of m*** stupidity.
<roygbiv> trompe, you asked a rhetorical question which you wanted me to answer, "Oh yes, I see that since the editors were all working for right-wing newspapers then logically they all support waging pre-emptive wars".
<TimothyW-> roygbiv : blah blah blah
<bud``> i guess there's only 145 newpaper editors in the world.. sounds like a lucrative field
<TimothyW-> http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=10/29/2005&Cat=4&Num=006
<trompe> roygibv: no... I was responding to your analogy between these 175 Murdoch editors, and "[11:41] <roygbiv> 175 people off the street (even politically informed people)"
<L0c0> this case may reveal something a bit scary, the lengths OUR government (doesn't matter who pres is) would go and how far they'd bend/flex/skirt the law in order to possibley retaliate against a dissenter
<trompe> roygibv: my point is that these 175 editors are not a random sample
<L0c0> being able to dissent is what differentiates us from the commies and dictators
<Swigert> Yay! On Tuesday, Star Wars III comes on DVD
<roygbiv> Really though, you're defending an undefendable point of view there. I'm saying that it's not possible for all 175 newspaper editors to agree on waging a pre-emptive war unless some of them were told to follow that line by their superiors. If you got 175 branch managers from any multinational company in the world to vote on anything, there are very few things they would all agree on.
<roygbiv> And a contentious war would be the last thing you would find consensus on.
<Kaliuna> yesss swiggy and later this month - - next month - several other movies are coming out on dvd AND some movies in theaters
<Swigert> kali: dont care - all I want is my Star Wars
<roygbiv> Just look at the US congress and senate. Did all republicans vote to support the war?
<Kaliuna> swiggy -- hehehee
<L0c0> Saddam tortured and killed dissenters....is it possible that our government looks to ruin people's lives for dissenting? big difference between killng and smearing...but, not really when you look at it in the context that we are a free nation and not a dicatorship
<trompe> roygibv: your thesis, as you have presented it, is this: (A) 175/175 Murdoch editors supported the war (B) 175/175 random people would not have supported the war (C) therefore, all 175 Murdoch editors are "parroting" the views of Murdoch. I am saying that your logical induction is flawed.
<L0c0> and i think many administrations have done this...
<L0c0> and it really does scare me. just how "free" are we?
<roygbiv> L0c0, was that the reason given to wage the 'pre-emptive' war? Was that the reason the media supported going to war? No!
<bud``> roygbiv as usual your argument is based on a sliver of actual facts, tens of thouisands of journalists fall under murdochs empire, but you somehow create 100% of them out of one tiny statistic that probably isnt even verifiable
<roygbiv> Don't bring up a strawman.
<roygbiv> Liberating the Iraqi people became the reason halfway through the war. In the lead up, there was no mention.
<TimothyW-> Poultry Sales must Increase.
<HiPPiEklR> all imaginary wmds
<trompe> "[11:52] <roygbiv> Really though, you're defending an undefendable point of view there. I'm saying that it's not possible for all 175 newspaper editors to agree on waging a pre-emptive war unless some of them were told to follow that line by their superiors. If you got 175 branch managers from any multinational company in the world to vote on anything, there are very few things they would all agree on." ... SOME is different to ALL
<bud``> roygbiv of so Iraqi freedom wasnt chosen as a military operation long before...
<roygbiv> bud, yes, 100% of those tens of thousands of journalists EDITORS.
<Kaliuna> roy -- go back to the original talk about it -- going to war -- saddam's failure to comply with UN orders
<bud``> roygbiv keep digging your ever present deeper hole
<Timur> it's 'indefensible'
<roygbiv> Kali, wait a minute though. Are you saying that the US went to war because of a UN resolution? I thought the UN voted AGAINST going to war?
<roygbiv> And the US ignored the UN, and went anyway?
<HiPPiEklR> ya
Return to politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
politics
roma
xmms
wow
|
|