Michelle, Steyn, Hollywood - Academy Awards 2013

[roy baty]

So indirectly, yes NATO is in fact supplying Al-Queda. Was it their intention? Not sure. Knowing that is taking place, is the support being cut off? No, in fact more support is being given and pledged. Regardless of them knowing that some of this support will more likely than not, come back to bite NATO in the ass. Seems to provide another 'opportunity' if you will to poke their nose into middle eastern affairs time and time again.

So to answer your question, drones are being used to solve a problem they took part in creating in the first place. Drones also offer the bravery of being out of range.

Are there factions in the West that are to blame for funding them in the past? Yes. Are they doing it now? Perhaps What it comes down to for me is that terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda who hit the US on 9/11 are comprised of Islamic fundamentalist fanatics who have, are and always will be hell bent on the destruction of the Infidel. I am not convinced that completely isolating ourselves from that part of the world in the past would have changed that fact one iota. I can't buy into drones being to blame for the continued actions of these lunatics either. If they weren't the fanatics that they are in the first place, drones or any form of military action would not have been required. The hatred of the infidel and the fanatics that carry that hatred has been there for thousands of years at different levels. I don't think it is possible to change that now anymore do I think it could have been changed a thousand years ago.

I predict that what we will see in the middle east in the near future is an alliance of the southern Arab nations with Egypt at the head of it as a result of this "spring". That will change the whole dynamic and balance (or lack of it) over there if it does happen. With the US on the decline God knows what we in North America are in store for.

[Pliny]

If they weren't the fanatics that they are in the first place, drones or any form of military action would not have been required. The hatred of the infidel and the fanatics that carry that hatred has been there for thousands of years at different levels. I don't think it is possible to change that now anymore do I think it could have been changed a thousand years ago.

I used to have that same view but it really is only the fanatics, who are in control of the populaces, that hold that

hatred in place. The West, being about freedom, cannot be perceived to be attacking anything on the basis of religion so it has to be careful how it approaches the problem of fanatical hatred. If you know a little about human behavior you know that people have to be constantly prodded to hate something that uses no force against them but is only touted as a threat by merchants of chaos.

Granted, the culture has not changed for a thousand years, but it was only in the last century that women and Blacks in the west won the right to be treated equally.

I predict that what we will see in the middle east in the near future is an alliance of the southern Arab nations with Egypt at the head of it as a result of this "spring". That will change the whole dynamic and balance (or lack of it) over there if it does happen. With the US on the decline God knows what we in North America are in store for.

Especially if Americans don't have the right to bear arms.

[kimmy]

I would say they are generally. The crowd that gets their news form Jon Stewart and Entertainment tonight don't really seem up on things political.

You do realize you're comparing a news organization to a comedy show and a celebrity gossip show?

Their predictions were wrong? I think most folks know that a prediction is a prediction not a fact. So Morris was

overzealous in his prediction. He was right quite a few times which is why he was paid the big bucks for his propaganda - and I don't think there is any doubt that more than a few Fox viewers know he is a propagandist. After all he got

Clinton re-elected.

Yeah, they always labeled him as "former Clinton advisor" so that Fox viewers would assume he's a Democrat. So when he says "Romney landslide," they think "gee, if even a Clinton advisor is saying this, the Democrats must be in deep trouble!" If they'd labeled him "Current Romney campaign employee" rather than "former Clinton advisor," that might have helped Fox viewers understand where he was really coming from.

The complaint was never that he made a bad prediction. The complaint is that he wasn't making a prediction at all: he was as he admitted in the interview with Hannity, trying to boost the Romney campaign:

Dick Morris is perhaps more of a propagandist and tries to manipulate outcomes rather than just predict them but I guess she doesn't watch enough Fox to make that determination.

I didn't have to make that determination; Morris himself admitted to it after the election.

All the networks have campaign staffers on their shows to speak for their party. All the networks except Fox identify them as such.

Dick Morris isn't the only one; Fox had a number of Romney campaign members on their shows as "analysts" to spread Republican talking points while failing to identify their ties to his campaign, particularly Elaine Chao and John Bolton.

The other thing I pointed out is that the conservative media wasn't just giving Dick Morris and his ilk a platform, they also devoted a ton of ink to trying to "debunk" all the polls that indicated Obama was comfortably in the lead.

"NONONO DO NOT LISTEN to these polls that say Obama will win! It is a Liberal Media™ trick! They are trying to deceive you!" They devoted daily space to this topic on their websites, all based around the premise that the Liberal Media™ was inflating Obama's poll numbers by oversampling Democrats. Shady provided us with almost daily updates on this hot-button issue.

They also devoted considerable space to personal attacks and character assassination of Nathan Silver. "He is a liberal! He writes for WaPo! He is a WaPo Liberal! He has kind of a high-pitched voice! He's not very manly! Do not listen to his blogs! He looks kinda fruity! Liberals only trust him because he says Obama will win! Nate Silver is like a security blanket for liberals in denial! He may have his little polls and his formulas, but we have Gut Feelings! We here in the Conservative Media Bubble are giving you the Real Truth that the Lamestream Media won't tell you! Ignore Nate Silver! Listen to us! And after the election, you can laugh at all the liberals who thought they were going to win! 'Merica!"

And of course we here at MLW had some number of users who were likewise convinced that the lamestream media was skewing polls to make it look like Obama was winning, and that after the election they'd be laughing at everybody who bought into the lamestream media lies and Nate Silver and his funny little calculations.

And of course it turned out that the lamestream polls were right and Nate Silver was so accurate that people suspect he might be from the future. All of that "debunking" was BS motivated by nothing more than a desire to attack information that was inconvenient to the political outcome they wanted.

Socialists drove Libertarians and the classical liberal out of the left during the nineteen-thirties. They have probably been sitting right where they were all the time while the scenery changed around them. Liberalism embraced creeping socialism, even Conservatism had to become progressive to get elected.

Regressive politics just aren't electable anymore? Well, it's a democracy, Pliny. I don't know what to tell you, aside from "sorry".

As for Akin and Broun, they actually told you what they thought, it's a pity that it's outright stupidity politically-speaking. Even Wasserman-Schultz, Pelosi and Reid know better than that.

Well, good for them for being honest, I guess. The point was, they're what the Tea Party has become. It might have started out as a small government movement, but it became a magnet for social conservatives. Our own Reform Party started out the same way. A "grassroots movement" is bound to attract people who feel disenchanted with the political mainstream, and for the Reform Party, that included getting flooded by social conservatives. The Tea Party was the exact same. So instead of the Less Government movement, they're now the More JEEEZUSS movement.

I'm not sure what kind of mental gymnastics you have to do to square libertarianism with social conservatism, but whatever it is, hopefully you can explain it for us so that we can see the thought process.

-k

[roy baty]

Regressive politics just aren't electable anymore? Well, it's a democracy, Pliny. I don't know what to tell you, aside from "sorry".

However, "sorry" will be something the Democrats will be saying once they bankrupt their country, Something tells me that "sorry" won't cut it. And yes, it will be people that helped him accomplish it and they will deserve everything that these so-called "progressive" politics gave them.

[Shady]

The central issues of the Tea Party are economic. Anyone suggesting otherwise is just looking for their particular issue du'jour, which you can find advocates of in any mass groups of political activists.

Roy Baty, you're exactly right. Obama's a great politician, but a horrible president. And his disasterous economic policies are only going to continue to cause this current recovery, to be the worst recovery on record, and that's include all 11 previous recessions. He's also in the process of bankrupting the country, and when a debt crisis hits, and when interest rates rise, and his debt level servicing in the budget crowd out all other spending, sorry isn't going to cut it. But as the affirmative action president he is, the media will probably continue to not ask him the tough questions of whether at this point, some of his policies are to blame. They'll just allow him to blame every other person he can find. With this president, the buck stops everywhere but his desk. All this while his bizarre wife refers to herself as a busy single mom.

I'll be glad when both of these failures are long gone from the white house. As I've said before, Hillary Clinton would have been a much better president.

[GostHacked]

Considering how the Benghazi thing was handled, I would not let Hillary even near the white house, let alone in it.

[Shady]

Considering how the Benghazi thing was handled, I would not let Hillary even near the white house, let alone in it.

Good point, I forgot about that. I guess I was thinking more domestically.

[roy baty]

Good point, I forgot about that. I guess I was thinking more domestically.

Bengazi? The mediaparty will have that buried so deep in 2016 it'll be a distant memory. Clinton with the Mediaparty's support will continue the incompetence the "progressives" seem to like to elect. How ironic the left calls this "progress". lol!

[Argus]

Great! So what is up with, kimmy and her claim that Fox viewers are uninformed?

Of course they're uninformed. They only get the news FOX wants them to see, and only get the version of it FOX wants them to hear. If you follow FOX you think that everything government does is a total waste, except for the military of course, and everything Wall Street does is right. Anyone who gets money from government is a dirty leach who should be cut off, except for big business, of course, because money to them helps America stay strong!

[Argus]

Ok Kimmy. We could just as easily say the remaining major news outlets are media arms of the Obama administration with much more proof to back it up.

But not honestly. The other media outlets don't hesitate to broadcast news that makes Obama look bad

Why is it that this ONE network ticks off you lefties so much?

Kimmy isn't a lefty any more than I am. We tend to be conservative, but thinking conservatives. There are no thinking conservatives on FOX. There are only reactionary blowhards pounding away at the corporate propaganda themes in no different ways than the broadcasters in North Korea -- and without much more subtlety, imho.

Sure the network leans right in a lot of it's opionion based content but when it comes to straight reporting, they will report

Only news which makes the Republicans look good and the Democrats look bad. More to the point, they'll select news that makes government look bad, that plays on the corporate theme that taxes are bad, that 'entitlements' are bad, that laws restricting business are bad. FOX has no straight reporting. None. All its news is slanted.

[Argus]

Translation: Obama isn't responsible for anything bad that happens, only the good. I won't treat him like every other president in his second term because he's inexperienced, and he's black, and he's my ideological equal. So I'll give him a complete pass for his utter failure of a record.

I don't think much of Obama personally. I said so way back when. I was hoping for a Mcain victory right up until he started playing to the religious right and then hired that idiot woman as his running mate. Even then I wasn't very enthusiastic about Obama. But again, last election, Romney... Romney?! Ick! I'd rather vote in Joe Clark than Romney.

[Argus]

Would someone please explain to me why the left up here and Democrats down there don't seem to give a crap that this president's policies may indeed bankrupt the US?

Because they're not his policies. The budgetary problems in the US can be traced to a man named George Bush, who cut taxes again and again while increasing spending. The Republican party has a mantra "NO TAXES EVER!" and that is basically the entirety of their economic policy. It's clear to any thinking person that the US needs to increase taxes, which are among the lowest in the western world. But the corporate agenda of the Republican party wants to instead cut taxes further, especially on the rich and on corporations, and make up the enormous shortfall be removing pensions and health care from the poor and middle class. What I don't understand is how anyone but the rich would support that.

[Argus]

Yes, they are also immoral and cowardly.

What is your alternative? Let me guess: leave them all alone. Well, they did that with Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden was able to build up a 10,000 man army for al Quaeda and then blow up the WTC. Oh, you mean leave the entire middle east alone and let the Arabs destroy Israel if that's what they want to do? Not going to happen. Just for a start, the US needs the oil over there, and so does the west. Oil is still the life blood of western economies.

[Argus]

So when Obama has added more debt in 4 years than Bush did in 8 you're silent. Why is that?

Because most of it is due to the fact Bush all but destroyed the American economy in his last months in office, leaving Obama to pick up the pieces.

[Argus]

Actually, he's the one that ordered the tripling of the trips in Afghanistan, and the president signing off on trillion dollar deficits every year he's been in office, even when the recession ended, you give him a pass. Even in his 5th year in office and the pathetic economic situation, you give him pass, as usual, pathetic.

The recession ended? Obama sure hasn't done much. But on the other hand, his hands have been pretty much tied most of the time by the Republicans, who refuse to do anything that doesn't involve cutting taxes or putting more money into the military.

[Argus]

The solution is to develop trade. Most dissent will then be focused internally. Export blue jeans, few may buy them intially but the market will grow and the culture will change.

It's a bit late, the lines are drawn, but it is never too late.

The west doesn't export cheap goods. It exports expensive goods. You're damn right few would buy them. The man on the street in the Arab word doesn't have the money for western goods. He buys his jeans from China, same as anyone else.

[roy baty]

Of course they're uninformed. They only get the news FOX wants them to see, and only get the version of it FOX wants them to hear. If you follow FOX you think that everything government does is a total waste, except for the military of course, and everything Wall Street does is right. Anyone who gets money from government is a dirty leach who should be cut off, except for big business, of course, because money to them helps America stay strong!

What a load of left-wing propaganda. Do you actually watch Fox News?? My experience about those who diss it the most either haven't watched it at all or watch it very little and go by what their favorite news source on the left, or their left-wing friends tell them about Fox News. Anyone who chooses NEVER to watch Fox News are the ones the most uninformed. There's a reason Fox News is the most popular cable news network, it's the only network that is not blatantly in the tank with Obama and his progressive cronies. Just the way the President likes it. I get my US news from CNN and Fox combined as well as their online sources. To disregard Fox News as a viable source of news is just plain left-wing BS.

Edited April 7, 2013 by roy baty

[roy baty]

Because they're not his policies. The budgetary problems in the US can be traced to a man named George Bush, who cut taxes again and again while increasing spending. The Republican party has a mantra "NO TAXES EVER!" and that is basically the entirety of their economic policy. It's clear to any thinking person that the US needs to increase taxes, which are among the lowest in the western world. But the corporate agenda of the Republican party wants to instead cut taxes further, especially on the rich and on corporations, and make up the enormous shortfall be removing pensions and health care from the poor and middle class. What I don't understand is how anyone but the rich would support that.

C'mon Argus really? 5 years into his administration and you still blame Bush?? Obama's economic policies and social programs, bad green investment decisions etc..etc.. have ZERO to do with their debt ultimately climbing to an estimated 20 trillion when he finishes his 2nd term? Just how many years or what will it take for you to hold this man accountable for anything? Not that I agree w/Republican policies of no tax hikes at all but he IS the President and is ultimately responsible for it's demise for not being the bigger man to at least compromise and work across the isle. None of which Obama has even come close to Clinton (a real leader) was able to do. Always deflecting blame from Obama to someone else has to end sometime doesn't it?

Edited April 7, 2013 by roy baty

[Argus]

What a load of left-wing propaganda. Do you actually watch Fox News??

I'm a big channel flipper, moving among the all-news stations, and the regular ones during news hours. I land on FOX often enough, and it's been a long time since I've seen anything which could be honestly called unbiased reporting there.

There's a reason Fox News is the most popular cable news network,

Yeah, the same reason all those reality TV shows flourish - there are lots of dumb Americans.

Edited April 7, 2013 by Argus

[Argus]

C'mon Argus really? 5 years into his administration and you still blame Bush?? Obama's economic policies and social programs, bad green investment decisions etc..etc.. have ZERO to do with their debt ultimately climbing to an estimated 20 trillion when he finishes his 2nd term? Just how many years or what will it take for you to hold this man accountable for anything? Not that I agree w/Republican policies of no tax hikes at all but he IS the President and is ultimately responsible for it's demise for not being the bigger man to at least compromise and work across the isle. None of which Obama has even come close to Clinton (a real leader) was able to do. Always deflecting blame from Obama to someone else has to end sometime doesn't it?

I'm no fan of Obama, or of his green energy policies. On the other hand, you're neglecting the fact that the US isn't Canada, and a president's hands are kind of tied on most things where congress refuses to cooperate. Compromise? How do you compromise when the other guys thinks that's a four letter word? Remember the committee that was put together to figure out how to address the big budget deficit? Remember that all the Republicans swore from the very beginning, before the committee had even held its first meeting, that they would oppose even one dime of new taxes? Not much of a surprise the committee failed to find any way out of the impasse to stop the US going over the 'fiscal cliff'.

[BubberMiley]

What is your alternative? Let me guess: leave them all alone.

Bad guess. They should do something that works. Drone strikes just make the surrounding population crazed with anxiety. The collateral damage just creates more terrorists. I have no problem with killing terrorists, but it should be done efficiently and up close. Like how they took out OBL. That was by no means cowardly. Edited April 7, 2013 by BubberMiley

[Pliny]

The west doesn't export cheap goods. It exports expensive goods. You're damn right few would buy them. The man on the street in the Arab word doesn't have the money for western goods. He buys his jeans from China, same as anyone else.

China probably doesn't export them to the Arab world either. But if they did would Al-Queda be upset with them?

What they need are some good human rights activists like that little girl shot for wanting to get an

education.

Edited April 7, 2013 by Pliny

[Argus]

Bad guess. They should do something that works. Drone strikes just make the surrounding population crazed with anxiety. The collateral damage just creates more terrorists. I have no problem with killing terrorists, but it should be done efficiently and up close. Like how they took out OBL. That was by no means cowardly.

Efficiently up close means send in enough people to kill the terrorists and everyone else who resists. Don't forget Bin Laden was in one compound surrounded by strangers. Oftentimes in these villages where the terrorists hide out if some foreign unbelievers show up to shoot down the terrorists the entire male population of the village will turn out with their AK-47s to attack you. That means killing off the whole male population of the village, along with anyone who gets caught in the crossfire, which is likely a lot of women and children. And it means taking casualties.

It might be braver, but it's not smarter, and it will lead to a lot more deaths.

[Argus]

China probably doesn't export them to the Arab world either. But if they did would Al-Queda be upset with them?

What they need are some good human rights activists like that little girl shot for wanting to get an

education.

In the worst days of 'human rights activists' here, you risked being dowsed with a fire hose, having dogs set on you, or maybe arrested. Trying it in the much of the Muslim world means almost certain death, possibly for your family as well. People who would assassinate a schoolgirl on a school bus wouldn't hesitate to kill anyone who displeases them. Remember the regional governor who spoke against the blasphemy laws in Pakistan?

[GostHacked]

What is your alternative? Let me guess: leave them all alone. Well, they did that with Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden was able to build up a 10,000 man army for al Quaeda and then blow up the WTC. Oh, you mean leave the entire middle east alone and let the Arabs destroy Israel if that's what they want to do? Not going to happen. Just for a start, the US needs the oil over there, and so does the west. Oil is still the life blood of western economies.

The US gets most of its oil from .. the US. Second on the list is Canada. Very little of the oil comes from the middle east. The Bakken Oil Fields is also estimated to have billions of barrels of oil. Which makes it larger than Saudi Arabia's reserves.

No one was really concerned about getting oil from Iraq as it was being destroyed through sanctions and a second war. Iraq is starting to have the production it once had about 15 years ago. So .. ok maybe it is about the oil.

Good thing Iraq is a free nation now. Wait .. another car bomb went off. Ah well all good in the daily life of the New Iraq. Al-queda all up there as well, but we don't seem to be concerned about that.