Left-Wingers - Idealists or Hypocrites?

[rushmc 23]

Wow, that is quite the blanket statement.
If the debate was in the context of your post than you would be hard to debate against.

But I don't accept any of your premises.

Goose steppers?

I feel that when anyone makes statements such as yours, it comes more from emotion and frustration.

Sad really

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Oh, and by the way.

If the intelligance was cooked then everyone, including Kennedy, the Clintons, Kerry, Dashale, McCain, Schumer, and everyone else from the left was making the same stew

If you are going to say that you need to back it up!!

but you can't..............

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I'm sure that I'm not the only one (but I could be).... But when peeps on here try to argue Left .vs. Right wing...... what are they actually comparing it too?.... Where's your middle ground.

Here's a good test: if you like Bush and hate Clinton, you're right wing; if you like Clinton and hate Bush, you're left wing; if you like both of them at times and hate both at times, then and only then are you really in the middle.

Then again if you hate them both, run for president yourself, whiner!

This is closer

Hate Bush, liked Clinton Lefty
Did not like Clinton, like Bush righty

Like or hate them both, politically unstatble

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

You may have been right about cooked inteligence But look below and see who may be been cooking what

With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...


Monday, Nov. 7, 2005 10:34 a.m. EST
Leakgate, the CIA, Iraq and 9/11



The Leakgate imbroglio has put the spotlight on the CIA's opposition to the Bush administration's Iraq war policy - with questions swirling about who at the agency thought it was a good idea to send Bush-bashing war critic Joe Wilson to verify key administration claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions.

But the Agency's double-dealing on evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction begs another question: Was the CIA an honest broker of information that seemed, early on, to link Iraq to the 9/11 attacks?

Longtime Washington lawyer Victoria Toensing - who drafted the 1982 law that was supposed to be at the center of the Leakgate scandal - has been arguing for weeks now that the CIA's permanent bureaucracy had a hidden agenda against the Iraq war.

Writing on OpinionJournal.com on Sunday, Toensing went so far as to suggest that the CIA's decision to enlist Wilson is beginning to look like "a brilliant covert action against the White House."

Was a similar strategy employed whenever inconvenient evidence materialized linking Iraq to 9/11?
Since two Iraqi defectors first reported in Nov. 2001 that radical Islamists had been trained at Saddam's Salman Pak terrorist camp to hijack airplanes using techniques similar to those employed on 9/11, the CIA has been working overtime trying to knock the story down.

The defectors weren't credible, Agency sources repeatedly told reporters.

"The probability that the training provided at such centers, e.g. Salman Pak, was similar to what al Qaida could offer at its own camps in Afghanistan, combined with the sourcing difficulties, leads us to conclude that we need additional corroboration before we can validate that this low level basic terrorist training for al Qaida occurred in Iraq," one CIA analyst told Knight Ridder news in January 2003.

Four months later, U.S. Marines overran the super secret facility that the Agency had dismissed as innocuous.

On April 6, 2003, CENTCOM spokesman, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, told reporters that the Iraqis defending the camp were not run of the mill soldiers.
"The nature of the work being done by some of those people we captured, their inferences about the type of training they received, all these things give us the impression that there is terrorist training that was conducted at Salman Pak," Brooks said.

"Some of them come from Sudan, some from Egypt, some from other places . . . It reinforces the likelihood of links between this regime and external terrorist organizations," the CENTCOM spokesman added.

The CIA's response? Certainly not the kind of intelligence review that would have gotten to the bottom of just what was going on at Salman Pak. In fact, at last report, the Agency accepted the alibi offered by Iraqi officials: that hijack classes staged aboard a parked airliner were actually hijack prevention exercises.

The Agency reacted the same way when Czech intelligence reported that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague just months before the 9/11 attacks, dismissing the claim despite repeated Czech assertions that it was true.

And when the London Telegraph reported in Dec. 2003 that the interim Iraqi government had uncovered a document that put Mr. Atta in Baghdad in July 2001, anonymous U.S. intelligence sources told Newsweek the document was a probable forgery, citing an Iraqi document expert who hadn't laid eyes on the paper in question.

Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, however, sounded thoroughly impressed by the discovery, telling the Telegraph:

"This is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with Al Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks.'"

Perhaps the CIA has conducted thorough behind-the-scenes investigations of each one of these episodes - and has simply decided not to go public with its smoking gun evidence debunking the claims. But there's nothing to that effect on the public record.

The 9/11 Commission claims to have conclusively determined that Saddam played no role whatsoever in 9/11. But like the CIA, the Commission has earned a reputation for ignoring important and compelling evidence - by burying key testimony that Mohamed Atta had been tracked down by the Able Danger intelligence group before the 9/11 attacks.

Meanwhile, in the only legal test of Saddam's involvement in 9/11 - a May 8, 2003 ruling by U.S. District Judge Harold Baer awarded two 9/11 families $104 million based on what Baer said was Iraq's "material" role in the attacks.

What's more, Oil for Food sleuth Claudia Rosett has offered a compelling, albeit circumstantial, case that Osama bin Laden didn't have the financial wherewithal to bankroll the 9/11 operation while simultaneously underwriting al Qaeda's worldwide network - until Saddam began pouring some of his Oil for Food profits into terrorist coffers.

Though even the Bush administration now treats the theory as hearsay, there remains a substantial body of evidence that suggests Iraq played a role in the 9/11 attacks.

And almost none of it has been credibly debunked by the CIA or other U.S. intelligence gathers, who offer only unsupported claims that the evidence in question is unreliable.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,175]

I find it hard to believe you keep quoting absurd crap from that source. You want I should start quoting Salon?

The CIA reports to the President, not to Congress or candidates.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Here's a good test: if you like Bush and hate Clinton, you're right wing; if you like Clinton and hate Bush, you're left wing; if you like both of them at times and hate both at times, then and only then are you really in the middle.

Then again if you hate them both, run for president yourself, whiner!

This is closer

Hate Bush, liked Clinton Lefty
Did not like Clinton, like Bush righty

Like or hate them both, politically unstatble

[GTAVercetti 0]

Stop posting newsmax. Really.

It does not help your cause.

It is equivalent of me posting from The Daily Kos.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rushmc 23]

Now who is being judgemental??

Dam, can't I have a little fun?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

It is a hell of a lot better than CBS.

I did not know that you are the one that tell us which
news sources are credible. And since you don't like newsmaxs position they are not credible??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I would love for you to find where I ever said that.

You did in mocking fun - do a search on rePUBICans. But in this thread you are proving the point anyway, but not in fun anymore, I think.

I like BVs post in this thread - the extremists on both sides are wacko and those in the middle don't much care.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 23]

Another credibilty expert..........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mr2mk1g 10]

News just in:

Bush to create new Ministry of Credability.

Concerned by reports that certain news stations are running biased and slanted news, the administration has set up a bureau to deal with the problem. From now on, this government body reporting directly to the president will determine which news sources are credible and which are nonsensical drivel. This move will settle forever debates based solely on whether or not a source is from a left or right wing slanted media outlet.

Sadly this report emanates from a site which has yet to obtain its certification of credibility and must therefore be dismissed.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Here is their caption of Rob Reiner walking past and Arnold poster:

" Hollywood director-actor Rob "Meathead" Reiner walks past a poster of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Meathead wants to defeat key propositions Schwarzenegger is backing. "

Now, we all know that Rob Reiner played a character often referred to as meathead by Archie Bunker. However, refering to him as such within a NEWS article with NOTHING to do with the show is NOT good journalism; it is a blatent and easy way to insult him by appearing benign. And everyone knows that Reiner is no fan of the right and vice versa.

Just look at their pundits: Jerry Falwell, Limbaugh. Here are two titles from the opinions:

Malzberg: Looney Left Media Lies
Putnam: Liberal Hypocrisy


Yeah, no lean or coloring of their stance at all.

We accept that sources usually lean in one direction or another but we can TRY to avoid using ones that are so FAR to one side. Otherwise, we will often find our points ignored or dismissed.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rushmc 23]

I never said it wasn't colored. But it is no different that quoting CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR, ECT.....

You have your sources but those aren't the only ones.

What is the matter, can't stand differing veiw points?

Regarding the post that you currently want to have everyone disregard. What specific points do you think are blatently "Fasle"?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GTAVercetti 0]

I thought I had inferred: I did not bother to read it.

One, I hate reading entire articles in these threads when a simple URL will do.

And two, my arguement is not of the particular story itself, but the source of the story.

Even Rush Limbaugh gets the facts correct once in a while, but it does not mean I am go out of my way to read or listen to everything he writes of says.

But whatever, keep posting from NewsMax. I am just saying you won't be winning any arguments that way.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rushmc 23]

Thanks, you conviced me

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GTAVercetti 0]

well, that is a relief. I can now get rid of this pesky insomnia.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rushmc 23]

I give you this....

You know when and how to lighten things up

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,600]

Quote

I never said it wasn't colored. But it is no different that quoting CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR, ECT.....

Your street might have Newsmax down the middle. I'm not sure what would be on the right side, but if nearly every news source in creation is to the left of you, it might be a sign that your worldview is probably pretty far to the right.

Which is fine. But you have to see that, and not just assume that every other person is biased.

Right/left is a relative, not an absolute thing. Just go look at the posts from people from other countries about where our "right" and "left" are.

So I guess what I'm saying is that when you post something from Newsmax, particularly if it's the only source in creation that's reporting a particular story, it shouldn't be surprising if a lot of people treat it with the same doubt that you would treat a story from, say, the Village Voice. And remember that if you're way on one side of the street, your perspective might not allow you to be the best judge of what's the farthest left-leaning. Just as I'm no good at telling the difference between Spanish-speakers by region, even though my Spanish is pretty good.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

I give you this....

You know when and how to lighten things up

I think it is one of my stronger traits. Thanks.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rushmc 23]

I do see the slant and I know where I sit. I do get very frustrated when I am told that where I get my news from (and Newsmax is one of many) is crap just because one does not agree with them.

All news and all reporters will always have some slant. It can not be helped. Unfortunatley, the majority of the main stream reports are left leaning. And that is not an opinion, that is based on surveys done by USC media department (I think, but I know it was a California college that did the survey or reporters)

The same "crap" comes from the left daily. Example, a NexisLexis search will reveal that in some time frame the charges against Libby were refered to as "outing a CIA agent" and that is not the case.

My point, there are more left leaning media outlets (especially mainstream) than there are right leaning.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

When I was a poor student in the UK I joined the Conservative Party. I am, in fact, a life member.

As I got older and much better off (and wiser) I became much more liberal in outlook (liberal in the original sense).

I was conservative from day one having come from a military family and having served myself after college. I think I leveled out when I became concerned with the environment and joined the Sierra Club. It's a shame what we have to choose from in an election. Scare tactics have kept us slaves to a two party system.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[mnealtx 0]

I recall reading (somewhere) that the original rules of the Presidential races was for the loser to end up as Vice President... that could make an interesting twist in politics if that rule was brought back, wouldn't it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ReBirth 0]

Quote

I recall reading (somewhere) that the original rules of the Presidential races was for the loser to end up as Vice President... that could make an interesting twist in politics if that rule was brought back, wouldn't it?

Yeah..that's the way it used to be. Pretty bad idea if you ask me. We'd probably see a definite increase in assassinations.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

We'd probably see a definite increase in assassinations.

How do you figure? I don't see it as making THAT much of a difference in that light...

I'd figure you'd be all over it, what with that whole "building a consensus" thing and all....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706