Monday Open Thread
Did you watch an interview with Clarence Thomas on 60 minutes last night? Very riveting stuff. I always admired the man and hearing him talk about his life is amazing.
NYTimes: War Debate Shifts to the House :
With the Senate unable to break its stalemate over war policy, House Democrats plan to bring up a series of proposals that focus on planning, military contractors and oversight instead of trying to force a withdrawal of troops.
This is an Open Thread.
Submitted by Ender on Mon, 2007-10-01 08:23
Tags:
Comments :
whoohooo
U.S. reports drop in military casualties in Iraq
:
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Wall Street Spooked
Correa is hoping to rewrite Ecudaors constitution, with the support of his new majority in Congress, after a fairly sweeping victory for his party.
Correa claims the 'old guard politics' was like the mafia and is seeking to reform his government to what some in the US say anti-free market.
Correa's Electoral Mandate
It is the economy, stupid.
if US pulls investments out
of any country that elects socialists, and moves it into better business climate countries like Brazil, Argentina, China, etc those countries will suffer and know what it feels like to be anti-free market.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Hasn't China already
invested in Ecuador? (Not sure.) Self interest and all.
While we have been distracted with a singular focus on Iraq, the world goes on around us.
I hear China has been busy cutting deals, and making friends all over the place.
While we have been busy threatening the enemies of Israel, around the world, capitalist China and other countries have been carrying briefcases, not bombs, making friends not enemies, talking, and making business deals.
Does Ecuador need the US if it can trade with Russia, China, Iran and others?
It is the economy, stupid.
who cares?
Who cares if Ecuador needs us or not. If they are hostile to our interests, don't trade with them. It's that simple. Who cares if Russia, China, and Iran trade with them.
For all the friends China has been making, their economy would utterly collapse if they stopped trading with US as we are by far their largest customer. It's a good trading relationship and that's how it should be.
Some people need briefcases and some need bombs. To everyone according to their need.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
maybe Wall Street
since the article claims that Wall Street is spooked.
Bombs or briefcases are insignificant compared to the Dow Jows Industrial Average. :)
It is the economy, stupid.
all these doomsday articles trying to affect Wall Street
but reality is stocks are about to break into record highs (that's after all the doomsday predictions when they dropped a 1000)...
Stocks surge after latest manufacturing data
- Dow at 13992.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Well, are you buying stocks at these levels?
I'm not buying myself. I don't think these high prices accurately reflect the increased economic risk which should be priced into these stocks as we see the housing market extremely weak, the jobs market soft, and corporate profits mixed.
I've watched the stock market too long to get caught up in these short term swings. The market has a lot of momentum players who will abandon ship at a whim once this rally has played itself out. I'm suspicious that the big institutional investors are cheering on this rally since the Fed eased so that they will be able to gradually ease out of their long positions at high prices.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
it is too volatile
that's for sure. But it's definitely not in bad shape - record territory says something.
Economy is not in a recession and has been slowing down/speeding up for a while. It might be a cause for caution but definitely not gloom and doom garbage.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You have to look at the stock market....
...in the context of the ultra-weak dollar. If you bought $10000 in stocks five years ago and sold them today, you'd have about $18000, but those dollars are a lot less valuable-- your $18000 would buy a lot less gold now, for instance, than your $10000 would have five years ago. So, you can't look at the stock market performance alone and conclude that we're not in recession or close to it.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
weak dollar is not automatically bad no matter how
much the left screams about it.
Weak dollar invites a lot of investment in our country, and is especially helpful to our exports. It really adds to the strength of the economy.
So? How does it really add to the perception that we are in a recession?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
We aren't an export economy
A weak dollar helps the trade deficit-- but we can't "weak dollar" our way out of our trade deficit, for instance, because we import so much more than we export, and much of what we import, such as oil, we absolutely rely on. On the other hand, a weak dollar has a very negative effect on Americans when Americans go to the grocery store or to the gas pump or when they heat their homes during the winter. In terms of purchasing power, the American consumer is in recession, and has been for several years-- there is no doubt in my mind. Wages simply have not kept pace with the cost of living, thanks in part to a declining dollar and a reliance on products such as oil and gas that we must get from abroad.
There is no doubt that a strong dollar would be far better for the US.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Foreign Policy
Now that's a foreign policy I can agree with. the US soft power is much more useful than our hard power (military). I wish we'd pursued such a course with regards to central and south america in the 80s.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
there is a time for each one
The key is knowing when to use em. :) US Economic power is an incredibly useful tool of course.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Yes, I watched Thomas on 60 Minutes
I rather like him, and wish he'd speak more often! just half as much as that big mouth Scalia will do! lol
Black conservatives are some of the most independent thinkers in this country -- as opposition and derision of Thomas proves: it's not easy being off the white liberal elite/black victimology plantations; more Thomas!
Politics is a clash of interests masquerading as a clash of principles. – Anonymous
yeah
I really respect Black Conservatives considering all the crap and ostracism they go through. Thomas is definitely one of my heroes. :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Now, more importantly, tell me how your Oliver is faring :)
Politics is a clash of interests masquerading as a clash of principles. – Anonymous
hehe
He had 3 teeth yanked (I thought it was only going to be one, but others were either chipped or wobbly so it was preventative). He was a bit in shock the first day, right after anesthesia limping around. On the 2nd day he was almost normal except for forgetting where some things are and not responding to his name. Now it's been a few days and he is in good shape - except he hates the anti-biotic that he has to take for another week. But he is back to his old tricks :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Wow! 3 teeth yanked; but he's a tough little fella; good news!
Politics is a clash of interests masquerading as a clash of principles. – Anonymous
yeah I can't imagine how much
the poor guy was suffering... It's always sad because he was so quiet and you can't know.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
That's good news :}
Two happy events this week: Oliver's recovery and Knocienz's plunge.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
I can't say Thomas strikes me
as an "independent thinker," frankly.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Why write his biography now??
Odd timing!
He seems to have an enormous chip on his shoulder and more than happy to share a piece of that grudge with the world. To me it comes across as a bit whiney.
It is the economy, stupid.
SL SC Meeting: Wednesday this week
Hehe. Same time: 5:30pm to 7:00pm Pacific time.
I'll post a reminder on Wednesday's open thread.
I've been pondering how politicians can use SL. You know, there were a total of 56 avatars there: if one excludes organizers, retinue, security, and protesters, you have a major politician speaking and taking questions from about 45 regular people. For free. And he has committed to returning to SL.
Where else can this happen but a virtual space? It cannot in real time, due to security and general hoopla issues. Plates at an event like that would cost more than the average person could handle, and the cost of the event would not be insignificant to the candidate. But, Hillary or Obama (or Joe "make me your rep") could walk unmolested in SL and actually talk to real people. Assuming, of course, that some politicians still want to do that ;}
I'm with Newt on this one. We simply cannot yet envision where this technology will take us.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Ender, what are you doing in PFF
Try Docudharma. Armando is even FP there and rallying against MoveOn.
they were entertaining me for a bit
yeah I signed up on Docudharma but I am not sure I can post on a liberal website wallowing in grief over all the Dem problems :) We'll see.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
So apparently it's OK for Phaux News & it's minions
to call progressives and liberals Nazi's and to liken their leaders to Adolf Hitler, but it's not OK for liberals to call rightwing people and groups Nazi's
. Glenn Greenwald brings this message to us today documenting the numerous times that the Anti-Defamation League and The Simon Wiesenthal Center issued press releases condemming liberals for calling various conservatives and conservative groups fascists. He also brings up the fact that when the Phaux news/Michelle malkin cretins of the world call Dkos, MoveOn.org, Jane Hamsher & Marcos Moulitsas Nazi's and Hitler like, these same groups said nothing at all:
"During his failed crusade to convince Democratic candidates to boycott Yearly Kos, Bill O'Reilly spent weeks, on a virtually nightly basis, labelling Daily Kos as Nazis. On Fox News, O'Reilly repeatedly said things like this: "There's no difference between the KKK and the Nazis, who have websites, than the Daily Kos." And: "The [Daily Kos] website sells hate, as does the KKK and the Nazis. The comparison is valid." On his talk radio show last night, Mark Levin labelled MoveOn and Media Matters as "brownshirts." Michelle Malkin this morning excitedly touted Levin's attack, cheering the "no-holds-barred Mark Levin" for labelling both groups as the "brownshirts of the Clinton crime family." On September 17, Bill O'Reilly had Tammy Bruce and Kirsten Powers on to wallow in outrage over a blog post written by Jane Hamsher in which she criticized Elizabeth Edwards for reciting right-wing talking points against MoveOn.org. Hamsher's picture was displayed while she and FDL were branded by O'Reilly as "fascists" and "Nazis." The largest right-wing blogs cheered on this smear."
America's right wing.....Acting like Hitler and loving it.
Liberals and Dems are adults
They dont want to go down to their level.
I've called certain rightwing politicians & groups
fascist before. But usually it was after a particularly pronounced fascist statement or act.
And....lest I get caught up in it....there are those on the left that are also intolerant of other points of view. It isn't just a lack of understanding or compassion that makes one fascist....You have to have certain totalitarian bona fides to really pull it off.
But what we have here is a Karl Rove mechanism at work. Say something horrible about someone. Keep saying it, no matter whether or not it has any credibility to it at all. Eventually, it becomes conventional wisdom.
That's what these people and groups are trying to do to progressives, liberals and Democrats. They want to brand them with the moniker and then all they have to do is recite what the current conventional beliefs are.
Now why the ADL or the Simeon Weisenthal Center would be willing to accomidate that, I don't understand.
Gore and Dems are doing it
Trying to appear reasonable and bipartisan. Bad consequence for the country.
Gore and Dems are forgetting they are dealing with gangsters and bullies. Compromising is not the answer.
They need strategy.
Who did Gore call a Nazi?
Who did the Dems call a Nazi?
My point is Dems and Gore are too nice
Gore in 2000--instead of fighting act like a statesman and gave up.
Dems instead of doing what Repubs did when they were in majority--want to compromise and appear bipartisan.
Obvious difference, is that in the case of the left wingers ...
being the facists, the charges are true.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Senator Harry Reid has thrown down the gauntlet to
all the other Senators regarding Rush Limbaugh and his patriotism in calling those soldiers who are against the current Iraq policy phony soldiers:
"During his show last Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh was engaged in one of his typical rants. This rant was unremarkable and indistinguishable from his usual drivel, which has been steadily losing listeners for years -- until he crossed that line by calling our men and women in uniform who oppose the war in Iraq `phony soldiers.'...Reid said he's leaving on the Senate floor a letter his office wrote to the head of the parent company of Rush's radio show denouncing Rush's remarks." He further said:
"If we take the Republican side at their word that last week’s vote on another controversial statement related to the war was truly about patriotism, not politics, then I have no doubt that they will stand with us against Limbaugh’s comments with equal fervor. I am confident we will see Republicans join with us in overwhelming numbers. Anything less would betray a double standard that has no place in the United States Senate. I ask my colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike, to join together against this irresponsible, hateful, and unpatriotic attack – by calling upon Rush Limbaugh to give our troops the apology they deserve."
I'll be curious to see who signs the letter. I'm not going to hold my breath.
Kaligula and MissL were right on this....
I pretty much saw the moveon ad censure as a non-event because it technically didn't cross any constitutional no-no's. I viewed the censure as something that congress shouldn't engage in it because the censure was a silly political move and meaningless rather than because of the first amendment implications (a nuanced argument admittedly.)
I now think that the spirit of the first amendment is important as well. Although technically, the censure didn't violate the first amendment, it violates the spirit of it which opens up the door to something that does violate the first, IMO, a letter from Congress sent to an employer for speech with which they disagree.
Not sure I would have changed my mind if Reid simply called for a censure over the Rush comments like they did with moveon, but interfering with someone's employment is a line that really shouldn't be crossed.
Please, I agree with the position you take.
But I thought this was an interesting News Item, particularly after the 3 ring circus that went on last week over the MoveOn ad...so I put a post here about it.
No explanation necessary...
I didn't know what your position was until you just posted it. My comments were only to give credit to Kaligula and MissL and a look at my own thoughts on the topic and how my opinion has changed.
no don't worry.
All too often, we go over each other's heads without realizing exactly what was meant to be conveyed.
I DON'T think the Senate (or the House for that matter) should be involved in this kind of thing. on that note, have you seen that Rep. Jack Kingston (R - GA) has introduced a resolution in The House supporting Limbaugh's ongoing public support of American troops serving both here and abroad
?
I hadn't seen that....
about the only solice I can take from this garbage is that at least these guys aren't wasting their time 'governing.' I have little confidence that such individuals support sound public policy.
Well thanks....
What could possibly a side benefit of the political theater that the Republican Congress put on last week, to pull at the short hairs of the dems, is maybe, just maybe (crosses fingers) folks will knock off this character assasination baloney, especially, in the context of political ads.
Hopefully this will have a chilling effect on rank rude slander and decietful character assasination of political enemies as opposed to just expressing strong opinions on the issues.
I find it disgusting beyond measure that folks disengeniously put up pictures of Osa bin Laden next to candidates they want to lose. It crosses the line into red baiting.
It is the economy, stupid.
Slipped!
or maybe more like pushed...
If Reid doesn't get his apology, the dogs will start barking about the Fairness Doctrine again...
AT QB, this shit is utterly predictable...
Reid is lying. His lies have already been debunked.
Welcome to the game. We have already advanced to the cat fight stage:
You lie, I correct the record. That's how this will play out.
Rush Sets the Record Straight:
"Phony Soldiers" Is a Phony Story
You Tube: Opening Monologue on the Phony "Phony Soldiers" Story
Oh, and of course the Media Matters* stories are fabrications as well.
--------------------------------------------
* A subsidiary of the Hillary Clinton and George Soros enterprises.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Last week you had no problem with the Senate censuring Moveon
now you suddenly have a problem with the Senate going after Rush?
Well, duh.
Last week Congress denounced MoveOn.org for taking out an ad that defamed and attacked General Petraeus while he was testifying about the efforts of our fine men and women in a time of war.
This week the left, in a pathetic attempt to deflect attention from themselves, is completely manufacturing a false charge against Rush. This is all well documented in the thread referenced above and on the Rush Limbaugh links provided.
There's nothing "sudden" about this, BTW, I have been battling the lies and misinformation for days now.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Ad Hominem justifications for hypocrisy don't work with me...
Here are the facts:
1) Last week, congress moved to censure Free Speech against Moveon.org
2) This week the same congress is moving to censure/penalize speech against Rush Limbaugh
You supported #1 and oppose #2
Reasons:
#1) Attack the character of Moveon as liberal, defend the character of Patraeus as the great patriot.
#2) Attack the character of congress, defend the character of Rush.
The fact is, congress has no business involving itself in the exercise of free speech of Moveon.org or Rush Limbaugh. That's my position. it's logical. It said last week that congress would get itself involved in a Tit for Tat.
You on the other hand engage in that bankrupt Michelle Malkin right wing practice of Ad Hominem attacks. That's all she does. That's all the right wing does anymore. it's pathetic...
And btw, just to clarify
Rush Limbaugh has every right to say what he wants to say on his Radio show without the meddling of congress.
I oppose what congress is doing. I especially oppose what congress is doing in the Rush Limbaugh instance.
By the same token, Moveon.org had every right to take out that ad without congress meddling in that either.
I totally agree Ka1igu1a...but
I don't think the censure is so bad...unless I miss understand its implications.
A censure doesn't really have any teeth as far as I can tell. It's just feet stamping to me.
Yes, Congress shouldn't be wasting time with this nonsense. Like I said last week, if they don't have anything better to do, they should close up and go home until they find a better reason to be at the capitol.
Congress is seeking a reprimand of Rush from his employer
That's going beyond a mere censure. If they don't get it, the democrats will start barking about the Fairness Doctrine again.
I got into this debate with AT QB last week that you can't shrug your shoulders about this type of congressional meddling because it would eventually spill over into legal ramifications. The Tit for Tat was easily predictable.
Equally appalling is
the Republicans going after the NYT, essentially the employer of free speech.
As mentioned previously, maybe this will cause Both sides to stop with outrageous slander of someone's character, and go after substance not personality.
It is the economy, stupid.
where are the republicans
going after NYT?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Didn't you hear
MoveOn violated 'something' because they got a discount rate for the ad and for the sake of equity and a possible FEC violation, later paid the full price.
Marsha Blackburn has all the details, and she was thrilled to have a platform to speak out on the betrayal by the NYT, of not realizing that they hadn't charged MoveOn enough for the ad, when she was on national television.
It is the economy, stupid.
umm so we can't try to enforce the laws
on the books or check into whether someone violated a law because they are a liberal organization?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Of course you can
I think Rudy got the same discount.
But this is the GOP going after free speech and the NYT, which is regretable.
And is the typical bait and switch, crying 'liberal' to avoid substance, which should be what can we do to fix Iraq, now that it is broken.
It helps if you look at the situation in Iraq with eyes wide open, and a clear viewing of all the facts, instead of this constant distraction of pointing fingers at liberals.
It is the economy, stupid.
Reference please?
I haven't followed this part of the story close enough to say for sure, but I think in the end Rudy paid the going rate for an ad that wouldn't have a date certain ... something that MoveOn didn't have to do. They got the ad on the exact date they wanted it and not by chance either.
But I will stand corrected if you can provide some evidence to the contrary.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
NYT = Employer of Free Speech? Totally bogus.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
No, you are lying too. Sorry.
Here are the facts:
1) Last week, congress moved to (correctly) censure
Free Speech againstMoveon.org for defaming General Petraeus.2) This week
the same congressReid and Harkinisare moving to censure/penalizespeech againstRush Limbaugh based on lies and fabrications about something he never said (i.e. meant).You supported #1 and oppose #2
Reasons:
#1) Attack
the character ofMoveonas liberalfor their baseless smears about Petraeus, defend the character of Patraeus as the great patriot.#2) Attack
the character of congressReid and Harkin for degrading Congress by spreading baseless lies, defend the character of Rush.If Rush had actually meant what the liars claim he meant, he should be censured just like MoveOn. That fact is that his critics are lying about what he meant to try and take the heat off of themselves. The MoveOn ad is undeniable. They paid for it and we all saw it.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Spare me you're Ad Hominem justifications...
I could give a rat's ass about your opinion of General Patraeus' character or Rush Limbaugh's character or whether you assert your opinion about each's character is objective fact.
To me, the issue of each's character is a red herring from the real argument whether or not congress should be in the business of censuring speech. That's the issue.
Do you think congress should be in the business of censuring speech. Yes or No. Don't give me a bunch of republican partisan Ad Hominem attacks against liberals. Straight answer, yes or No. And live with it's consequences, either way...
I can't give you a yes or no answer ...
because the two cases are not equivalent. That's my point.
If you want answers to specific questions, then why don't you try asking those specific questions rather than engaging in falsifications?
Depends on exactly what YOU mean by "in the business of". If you mean doing that to the exclusion of all else, then no. If you mean setting an example by denouncing reprehensible behavior based on truth, then yes (or at least I don't mind).
I'm not giving you Ad Hominem anything. I am giving you straight answers.
In the case of the MoveOn.org ad they undeniably leveled unfounded charges that should be denounced.
In the case of the Rush Limbaugh flap, his critics are out right lying and so their attempts to denounce him for something that he didn't say should be thwarted.
As has been noted, the censure does nothing to MoveOn.org other than express contempt for what they did. The petition being put together by Reid would seek to affect Rush's livelyhood based on a fabrication. You may see these as equivalent. I do not.
Do you believe that Senators and Congressman give up their right to free speech when they get elected? Yes or no, and live with the consequences.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Oaky you answered the question
You think congress should be in engaging in this activity, indeed "setting an example by denouncing reprehensible behavior based on truth."
By "behavior", I suppose you mean "speech."
Therefore it is your position that congress should be setting an example by denouncing reprehensible speech, if based on "truth."
So we know your position when it comes to the 1st Amendment. And you've hung yourself with that position.
Surprisingly enough, congress considers itself the arbiter of truth, not what you think or what Michelle Malkin thinks or what Ann Coulter thinks. And guess what, congress sees the truth as that Rush Limbaugh slandered the US Military. And they are now going after him, in an obvious Tit for Tat for the action against Moveon last week.
You can cry all about it and argue Rush's innocence on Swords Crossed till the cows come home. But it's not Swords Crossed that is reprimanding Rush's employer for an apology.
And if you had read my posts, I have stated that I consider what congress is doing to Rush Limbaugh worse than the censure against Moveon. And my posts last week predicted that the censure against Moveon would result in this eaxct Tit for Tat BS that would carry more of a legal penalty ramification.
Frankly, it seems I'm now having to repeat to conservatives what i've been preaching to liberals for some time now. You want Big Government to enforce your ideals, but remember, it's not always going to be your guys who are in charge.
You suppose wrong ...
I mean demeaning and degrading national heros (or prominent citizens) based on no legitimate evidence, amongst other things. I don't care how they go about doing it.
And this is false. Incorrect. Lacking any semblence of the truth.
At this point in time what we have is Harry Reid and Tom Harkin asserting that, not Congress. In the case of the Petraeus ad the resolutions passed overwhelmingly by full votes of both houses.
That is hardly the same thing as Harry Reid abusing his position by soliciting signatures on a petition, or Tom Harkin making a speech. When Congress votes overwhelmingly in both Houses to denounce Rush THEN you might have a case. Right now? Not so much.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Set phasers for "partisan."
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
and the NYT
Marsha Blackburn's research on the evils of the NYT, knowing every detail about Move.On and the ad in the newspaper, trying to associate the NYT with MoveOn.
Going after the press, as in free speech, is frankly reprehensible, inflammatory, and unnecessary.
Rush will never lose his core base, or his show. It is up to his boss and the advertisers on his show whether they enjoy Rush's partisan character assinations.
MoveOn will not lose it's core base either, and they have every right to take out an ad in a newspaper.
It's free speech.
The Republicans seeking in essence to have a chilling effect on free speech, with political stunts on the floor of the hallowed halls of Congress, will now find that the sword cuts both ways.
So GR, can we assume that you would have zero complaints if the NYT, a business, was silenced, but plenty of problems if Rush's radio show, a business was silenced.
It is the economy, stupid.
Lies, Lies, Lies.
BS. Nobody is going after free speech. MoveOn.org suffered no real consequences other than be denounced for their reprehensible behavior. They were not fined. They can still run the ad if they wish. Their free speech has not been impaired in the least.
It is surprising that you would take the position of this action by Congress as being anti-free speech. What Congress has done is essentially what the champions of Political Correctness have done, denounced specific behaviors. But both you and Specter have argued that PC does not violate free speech. People are free to say what they want, they just need to be willing to live with the consequences. Well, MoveOn, welcome to the consequences.
Lie. Strawman. The supposed abuse by Rush in this case is a fabrication. We should not censure people based on fabrications.
This remains to be seen. When both houses of Congress overwhelmingly pass a resolution denouncing Rush for a lie, THEN you will be able to say things cut both ways. Actually, even then you won't because in the case of MoveOn what they said and who they directed it at are not even contested because it was all right there in the ad. In the case of Rush the exact opposite is true.
The fact that these charges against Rush are based on lies undercuts your point completely.
You assume wrong and your point is a lie on its face. I have no problem with the NYT engaging in legitimate free speech based on the truth, and your suggestion that the NYT is being in any way silenced as a result of these actions is a lie. They have suffered no financial consequences. In fact, their bottom line seems to have improved because MoveOn was forced to pay full price, as they should have all along.
Ditto for Rush. If he lied he should suffer the same consequences as the NYT. He hasn't lied about what he said or what he meant.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
This statement GR
is what is frightening people.
When you say, I have no problem with the NYT engaging in legitimate free speech based on the truth
There seems to be more than one version of the truth these days.
We see the insanity of someone says X is true, and then someone else says, no way X is true, only Y is true.
For instance you believe that your version of Rush's "phony soldiers' statement is true, that he was speaking of only one soldiers, where as others don't.
Here for example is one very visual interpretation of what Rush means with his statement.
The Story of a "Real" Soldier
It is the economy, stupid.
My version has the benefit of being true. Yours does not.
I verified what Rush meant through my personal investigation and by listening to what Rush had to say on the topic. Who should know better than Rush what Rush meant?
The people who claim that Rush meant anything other than what he himself says are liars.
You lie, I correct the record. That's how this will play out.
Rush Sets the Record Straight:
"Phony Soldiers" Is a Phony Story
You Tube: Opening Monologue on the Phony "Phony Soldiers" Story
Oh, and of course the Media Matters* stories are fabrications as well.
--------------------------------------------
* A subsidiary of the Hillary Clinton and George Soros enterprises.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Turns out Rush wasn't the First to Report on "Phony Heros"
I know you won't like the source but the facts provided here are obviously legitimate and easily checked simply by following the links provided:
ABC Reported on ‘Phony Heroes' Two Days Before Rush Limbaugh Did
So, is the lying Reid going to go after ABC News too, or is he the source of the ACTUAL double standard in the Senate (since he is lying about who Rush Limbaugh was referring to when he referenced "Phony Soldiers").
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Yet more evidence of the Phony Heroes/Soldiers story
predating Rush Limbaugh:
Phony Vets Scam more than $1.4 Million and Damage Image of Honorable Veterans
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Disgraced Fake War Hero* attacks Rush Limbaugh ...
on the floor of the Senate!
Michelle Malkin has the full details:
Fake war hero Tom Harkin smears Rush Limbaugh
----------------------------------------------------
* As opposed to a Phony Soldier which is defined by Rush Limbaugh to be someone who impersonates a real soldier to degrade and malign our troops.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I've stayed out of this discussion
b/c i can't believe people still take Rush seriously anyway, but i just wanted to ask you a few questions.
You say (among others) that Rush was talking about Jesse Macbeth, correct?
Yes.
(Among others like him, i.e. people falsely pretending to be Iraq and Afganistan vets and smearing the troops)
More to the point, this is what Rush says he meant and the full audio backs that up.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
The transcript says otherwise
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/2/01855/2302