Bill O'’Reilly: "“But hereÂ’s the problem with American reportage. Some networks give moral equivalency to Hezbollah in the reporting of this war."” Dan Rather: "“I agree that that's a problem.: O'’Reilly: "Do you agree it happens?" Rather: "I agree it happens, and I agree it's a problem, that, it's a problem that those of us in journalism have been reluctant to address —I do not exclude myself from this criticism —reluctant to address that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization."” O'Reilly: "“Right."” Rather: "“It's committed to the destruction of Israel. It isn't committed to trying to just gain territory. It's committed to its destruction."
Dan Rather money quote, literally:
"It'’s not by accident that our slogan in this country, written on our money, our buildings in Washington, united we stand."It's fake, but acurate!
Again, this is whyingraineda is biased. It is engrained in their very being...they can't help it. When you can't call an organization terrorist when they use civilians as shields and their only purpose in life is to destroy another country, how can you report the news correctly...
Posts
12 comments:
Moonbattery at its finest.
What's up with the characters in your font set on the front page here?
Have a virus 'er sumpin'?
Yes, awfully hard to read and know where the actual quotes, if any, are. Can you fix?
I looked at a quarter, a dime, and a penny. Each had the words E PLURIBUS UNUM on it. That means "out of many, one". When I was a kid, I learned that it meant "United We Stand". I'm not as old as Rather, by the way.
However, "out of many, one" and "United We Stand" are pretty close, especially when we are talking Latin translation.
Moving on, what is the definition of a "terrorist organization", who defines it, and who decides what group is one. This is a serious question so don't throw me any "liberals want to make nice with terrorists" bullshit.
Jim--
Our words have acquired meanings through a centuries-long process of usage. The English-speaking community has defined what terrorism is.
Most consider terrorism to be violence or threatened violence by a person or group of persons with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies and governments, often for political and ideological reasons.
I suspect Orwellians on the left want to redefine terrorism to mean any use of force. This newspeak would include everything from the police enforcing local laws to wars between nation states. Giuliani could be a terrorist in New York, just as Bush is a terrorist in Afghanistan. I've seen the T-Shirts Democrats wear calling Bush a terrorist.
They profess to be against coercion, but in practice they aren't, as no rational person should be. Their coercion is simply redefined out of existence -- investments in education, social security contributions, affirmative action is equal opportunity and so forth.
Jason says;Most consider terrorism to be violence or threatened violence by a person or group of persons with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies and governments, often for political and ideological reasons.
If one often reads the comments on this blog one could easily determine that Jason himself is a terrorist according to this definition. Game is off but he seems to have a heart hiding in there somewhere.
For one to accuse the left of Orwellian speak is pot kettle black at minimum. Do you think you are reading about liberals when you read 1984? If so you must be among the few that think authoritarainism is a left wing ideology? I think few would doubt that this is largely a right wing phenom.
Jasons "argument" is a well known battle plan of the right. Attack the strong point and turn it into one of your strengths and their weaknesses. Especially since the start of the Rovian dynasty.
War heros are unpatriotic..non servers are truer and better leaders and patriots, for one example.
War is Peace
Ignorance is strength
Slavery is Freedom
Jasons arguments are common sense
ron--
How have I used or threatened violence to coerce a society or government? How have I used violence in general during my, well, entire life? Care to explain this?
In Orwell's 1984, I don't think about liberals like John Stuart Mill, James Madison or Adam Smith. I think about socialists like Karl Marx and Martin Heidegger. The way socialists have appropriated the word liberal for their own purposes is yet another example of how the left misuses language for the sake of power.
Substituting authenticity for rationality is something Heidegger would approve of, and is something you just did in your last post. You'll find more Republicans who have served than Democrats in the Congress, but I've never substituted authenticity for evidence and reasoning. Rationality, after all, is a liberal trait.
I am not a conservative. My political principles are rooted in the tradition that begins with John Locke, not with the tradition that begins with Edmund Burke. I'm a liberal.
Jason: No you havent used violence. You are all talk and let others do it for you. You continually have stated how the arab society and Islam in general are evil and should be destroyed or intimidated by military power.
The word liberal has been appropriated and twisted and used by the right to suit there own purposes far more than any other group you could mention. No one in the realm of common sense could dispute this.
I said nothing about how many on what side served. I said that anyone that served that opposed Bush(repub and dem) were smeared and their service diminished while Bush was held up to be a patriot. Saxby Chambliss did the same thing with Cleland and Allen recently attempted to do the same to Webb. Can you name a Democratic campaign where someone smeared those who served in combat when they had not. I not only gave you a rational view but used authentic reasoning with evidence that I aquired through looking at the big picture. Again you attack the image in the mirror.
You can call yourself what you want..it's a free country. I think few people who consider themselves liberals would find you a fellow traveler.
I have to admit my princpals are rooted in spirituality. Not religon. Spirituality. Thomas Paine and the Age of Reason is as close as I can get.
ron--
Clear and informed thinking is my standard. Proferred common sense that cannot meet such a demand should be rejected.
Again, my political thought resides in the tradition of John Locke, Adam Smith, Immanuel Kant, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, David Hume, Friedrich Hayek, John Stuart Mill, Abraham Lincoln, and Dwight Eisenhower.
I am not in the tradition of Saint-Simon, Marcuse, Marx, Heidegger, Gramsci, Lenin, Nietzsche, Sartre, FDR, LBJ, and Chavez. I think liberal democracy is not only better than a unified community, or Volk-- I believe liberal democracy should be supported by violence, since reason has the right to resist unreason. Historical evidence generally supports liberal economics, not socialist economics. And I do not believe our social conventions need to be radically transformed for the purposes of revolutionary liberation.
I'm also not in the tradition of Edmund Burke, Richard Hooker, Abraham Kupyer, Joseph de Maistre, Benjamin Disraeli, Pat Buchanan, Jean-Marie Le Pen, or Jorg Haider. What is good is universal-- liberals care about more than just their own tribe. Secondly, liberals are pro-science and believe education sends ignorance in retreat. Third, liberals believe in economic analysis and have argued since Ricardo that protectionist policies generally do those who implement them harm.
Just as the moral majority is neither moral, nor a majority, the Democrats today are not a liberal party, no matter how many times the word is misused by their friends and foes.
And yes, I hang out with many intelligent Republicans who consider themselves liberals. What the rabble thinks about the word is irrelevant for intellectual purposes.
Well Jason, as I said it's a free country and you can call yourself whatever you want. I don't follow the the "teachings" of anybody in particular. My theory of life is take what you want and leave the rest. That is what I do. If it makes common sense I adopt it and if it doesn't I reject it. As Thomas Paine said:
"Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe."
He also said:"I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.".....I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."
That correlates with my beliefs. I follow no one or no particular philosophy. I am actually probably more of a populist in the style of Teddy Roosevelt(A Republican by the way) than a liberal. I enjoy calling myself a liberal because of the smears that have been set on them..totally falsely, just to antagonize the people that do it, and they do seem to care more about what is important to me than the conservatives do.
I can't name drop like you can. I am not a college grad. I am not an intellectual. My education has come from partaking of experience in the country in every corner and in between, living life and listening and learning, good and bad, from actual results of their lives. I am the common man, as much as you all would like to turn me into something else.
You said: What is good is universal-- liberals care about more than just their own tribe. Secondly, liberals are pro-science and believe education sends ignorance in retreat.
On these things we can certainly agree. Freethinking is a part of all of this. Narrowness of thought and disallowing any alternatives is not. We had a brief discussion of good and evil and right and wrong on my blog. Right and wrong is a harder thing to sort out because of circumstances involved. To me good, as stated above is trying to get what is best for all concerned. Good is uplifting, evil is destructive.
And my view on you "supposed" right-wingnuttia fools is this:
You are the evil ones. Talk about calling the kettle black when you call the Dems the socialists! Your GWB & cronies are about as communistic as it gets! I'd a LOT rather have socialism than what we have now, but you won't even compromise with that -- it's this communistic regime or nothing. At least with socialism, one has some rights.
This is why I'm so sick of reading your crap here -- you're so much the hypocrits. Liberals this, liberals that, liberals socialists, liberals bad, blah blah blah. You all suck. You're not right -- you're way far of left (and wrong on pretty much everything)!
game said...
When you can't call an organization terrorist when they use civilians as shields and their only purpose in life is to destroy another country, how can you report the news correctly...
Um, maybe by calling them actual people, by name? OIC. That would make too much sense.
Post a Comment