or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama: It's Still Bush's Fault
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama: It's Still Bush's Fault - Page 6

post #201 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Any facts or reasons I've listed for you about Bush fell on deaf ears ( like my long quote from this: http://www.historycommons.org/index.jsp website which uses only researched facts not opinion you called it " An anti war site " as I recall ).

Historycommons. I mean, really. How do you expect to be taken seriously? All one has to do is see what that site IS, and read a few headlines to know what it's point of view is.

Quote:
The History Commons website is an experiment in open-content civic journalism. It provides a space for people to conduct grassroots-level investigations on any issue, providing the public with a useful tool to conduct oversight of government and private sector entities. It is collaborative and thus allows individuals to build upon the work of others. Each investigation is organized as a “project,” which is made up of at least one timeline. You can contribute to a project by adding new events to the timeline associated with that project. All submissions are peer-reviewed by other users before being published. If you would like to participate in this effort, you will first need to create a user account. Once you have done that, you can begin adding events to any timeline.

In other words, it's Facebook for conspiracy theorists, posting in their pajamas--in their mother's basements.

Quote:

So if Obama patterned himself after Dubbya he'd be better?

Straw man. But in some ways, yes. In some ways no.

Quote:



Hey! Dubbya promised he'd smoke out OSBL!

Instead he made sure Saddam was hung out to dry. Not a great subsitute if you ask me.

To be be fair he didn't "promise." He didn't get him though. Then again, neither has Obama. Have you even heard Obama mention his name?

Quote:



And how the hell did Clinton get into this again?

Because I made a historical comparison. I take it that mentioning Clinton's name is no longer allowed? Do you deny that the former President benefited from some excellent timing on the economy?

Quote:

So in other words if things get better you've already mapped out your escape route. I see.

Nice try. What I'm saying is that the government is not instituting policies that anyone with a brain thinks will help the economy. If it recovers it will absolutely be in spite of those policies. Massive debt, high spending and rising tax rates do not help economies. Neither do government takeovers and inflationary monetary policy.

Quote:



Sorry but it sounds like you're judging him to me. So All I have to say is wait until he's out of office ( by your own logic ) to judge him.

It'll probably only be another 7 years.

Man..you really don't read. I'm judging him, yes. I'm judging him SO FAR. I'm not judging his entire Presidency.

Quote:

Another quote from the past on that same page :



Well at what point would be ok? It sounds like you're damning Obama after only one year. When you made your statement about Bush he'd been in office for 7!

Please...READ. I am judging his policies to date. What is wrong with that? I don't support increased government size and scope, more debt, apology tours, the lack of American exceptionalism, closing gitmo, trials for terrorists, porkulus bills, takeovers of banks and auto companies and a trillion dollar health care program. If you do, that's fine. I just don't.

Quote:

Sorry you were using this logic before to deflect criticism of Bush so what's good for one has to be good for another.

If you find fault with this or disagree then you still need to answer the question.

OK, one more time, jimmac: People like you judged Bush to be the "worst President in history" and said that his presidency did damage that would take a generation to undo. That, of course, is absurd. One can't judge a President like this when he's in office. Moreover, there was little merit to the argument when it was made.

Now, by comparison, Obama has instituted policies that VERY WELL may harm this country for a generation. Simply take a look at the government's entitlements and unfunded liabilities. They will LITERALLY take generations to fix.

From CNN:

Quote:
To help put things in perspective, the Peterson Foundation calculated the federal government accumulated $56.4 trillion in total liabilities and unfunded promises for Medicare and Social Security as of September 30, 2008. The numbers used to calculate this figure come directly from the audited financial statements of the U.S. government.

Healthcare is something that will never go away once passed. It is the framework for single payer, not matter what the final bill says.

Despite this, I am not saying that he will be the worst President in history. I have no idea where he'll end up. He could even turn it around. If he comes to the center and economy gets back on the growth cycle, he may be viewed much differently.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #202 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Historycommons. I mean, really. How do you expect to be taken seriously? All one has to do is see what that site IS, and read a few headlines to know what it's point of view is.



In other words, it's Facebook for conspiracy theorists, posting in their pajamas--in their mother's basements.



Straw man. But in some ways, yes. In some ways no.



To be be fair he didn't "promise." He didn't get him though. Then again, neither has Obama. Have you even heard Obama mention his name?



Because I made a historical comparison. I take it that mentioning Clinton's name is no longer allowed? Do you deny that the former President benefited from some excellent timing on the economy?



Nice try. What I'm saying is that the government is not instituting policies that anyone with a brain thinks will help the economy. If it recovers it will absolutely be in spite of those policies. Massive debt, high spending and rising tax rates do not help economies. Neither do government takeovers and inflationary monetary policy.



Man..you really don't read. I'm judging him, yes. I'm judging him SO FAR. I'm not judging his entire Presidency.



Please...READ. I am judging his policies to date. What is wrong with that? I don't support increased government size and scope, more debt, apology tours, the lack of American exceptionalism, closing gitmo, trials for terrorists, porkulus bills, takeovers of banks and auto companies and a trillion dollar health care program. If you do, that's fine. I just don't.



OK, one more time, jimmac: People like you judged Bush to be the "worst President in history" and said that his presidency did damage that would take a generation to undo. That, of course, is absurd. One can't judge a President like this when he's in office. Moreover, there was little merit to the argument when it was made.

Now, by comparison, Obama has instituted policies that VERY WELL may harm this country for a generation. Simply take a look at the government's entitlements and unfunded liabilities. They will LITERALLY take generations to fix.

From CNN:



Healthcare is something that will never go away once passed. It is the framework for single payer, not matter what the final bill says.

Despite this, I am not saying that he will be the worst President in history. I have no idea where he'll end up. He could even turn it around. If he comes to the center and economy gets back on the growth cycle, he may be viewed much differently.

Quote:
Historycommons. I mean, really. How do you expect to be taken seriously? All one has to do is see what that site IS, and read a few headlines to know what it's point of view is.

Don't you get it? It doesn't matter what the site's viewpoint is. They use only researched facts with references. How do you counter that? It wouldn't matter if they had you as their director they still use facts backed up by references. And I don't see them editorializing. All they do is list a timeline. Sorry if the truth wasn't so kind to dubbya or that it didn't fit your world view.

This is what I mean by it's useless to talk to you. There's no way to refute the facts they list. And yet you don't like it and try to paint those facts as biased. So show me where those facts are doctored or that they are colored to fit a partisan view. Can you?
Or show me where they are editorializing the facts. Can you? If not then you really can't say the site is biased in the way they present their material. What they don't inject is a viwepoint one way or the other. Just the facts no conclusion.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #203 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

Probable because we are both served in the process. Your happy because you get attention and I'm happy because I get to further expose the ridiculousness & hypocrisy of Liberals and their ideology.



As in all threads in PO that we've had, you can have the last word. Also, feel free to spend some hours trying to grave-dig a thread where that hasn't been true and then come back and post a furious rant of how I should try to prove it for you. That would be a classic last post.



Hehe, I guess for liberals "It's Bush's fault" still works I see, but that is not surprising. Also, Bush didn't actively do anything to provoke a housing crisis, the people in power at the time was a Democratic Congress (power of the purse - economy) that did foster such.



And still at 8,000 + posts an counting... I'm sure you'll find some reason to keep posting, it hasn't stopped you before and since nothing has changed, there is no reason to think your behavior would either.

Also, I'm not without some small sense of humor. I can fully enjoy you posting how posting is a waste of your time here and yet continue to post. It's great. You should include that statement in the next post too.



Therefore, you must show your superiority and win the meaningless award by continuing to post. Whatever excuse you can find to try to get that last word is completely worth it, because if you didn't, it would be an even bigger waste of your time right? You can't let the time you already sunk into it go to waste.



Ironic since you look over everything and always argue from the liberal point of view. The thing I don't know is if that is your intention or if you really think your view is any less non-partisan.



Nothing except a Liberal point of view would satisfy your definition of that requirement - which in itself is not non-partisan. An unfortunate quandary you've put everyone in.



Neat picture, is that what you do on your off time with fellow liberals?

Anyways: This'll be my last post in this thread unless someone else engages in the on-topic post I made before this responding to SDW. Feel free jimmac to let nature take hold and let yourself waste more of your precious time creating the last posting.

You know for someone who said I've got to have the last word.........
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #204 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You know for someone who said I've got to have the last word.........

Yep...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #205 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Don't you get it? It doesn't matter what the site's viewpoint is. They use only researched facts with references. How do you counter that? It wouldn't matter if they had you as their director they still use facts backed up by references. And I don't see them editorializing. All they do is list a timeline. Sorry if the truth wasn't so kind to dubbya or that it didn't fit your world view.

This is what I mean by it's useless to talk to you. There's no way to refute the facts they list. And yet you don't like it and try to paint those facts as biased. So show me where those fatcs are doctored or that they are colored to fit a partisan view. Can you?
Or show me where they are editorializing the facts. Can you? If not then you really can't say the site is biased in the way they present their material. What they don't inject is a viwepoint one way or the other. Just the facts no conclusion.

You have to be kidding me.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #206 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You have to be kidding me.

In other words ( once again ) you don't have a real response to this because there's nothing of substance that you can say in the way of a counter argument. It's nice that there's a site that has gathered all these facts ( and references ) in a nice tidy little place for people to see.

I think we've pretty well settled the mistaken idea that I don't provide support for my arguments. But I can see how you missed them.

Thanks SDW for helping to prove my point!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #207 of 419
The AP just posted the following story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100103/..._democrats2010

Quote:
An already difficult situation for Democrats in Congress is worsening as the 2010 political season opens.

To minimize expected losses in next fall's election, President Barack Obama's party is testing a line of attack that resurrects George W. Bush as a boogeyman and castigates Republicans as cozy with Wall Street.

Four House Democrats from swing districts have recently chosen not to seek re-election, bringing to 11 the number of retirements that could leave Democratic-held seats vulnerable to Republicans. More Democratic retirements are expected.

From the perspective of this story, perhaps things are not so different from the claims being made in this thread? There is a lot more to the story, feel free to read and reply.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #208 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

In other words ( once again ) you don't have a real response to this because there's nothing of substance that you can say in the way of a counter argument. It's nice that there's a site that has gathered all these facts ( and references ) in a nice tidy little place for people to see.

I think we've pretty well settled the mistaken idea that I don't provide support for my arguments. But I can see how you missed them.

Thanks SDW for helping to prove my point!

For one I am close to speechless. Your inability to see that site for what it is is mind boggling.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #209 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

For one I am close to speechless. Your inability to see that site for what it is is mind boggling.

Oh my god! What could they be doing that you are so " Speechless " you can't point it out to us other than vague claims?

What is it that you don't like? The facts that they list ( because they don't draw conclusions )? And there are references for everything so you'd probably have a good time refuting them. So I'm guessing it's just that those facts exist.

What a crock!

Maybe it's this part that you don't like : http://www.historycommons.org/aboutsite.jsp since it doesn't draw conclusions either. Here's what one of their readers had to say :
Quote:
“I spend most of all of my available time researching material from the [History Commons website]. ... I have found that the detailed and accurate information from the [website] can allow a user to build a comprehensive overview of things. There are no quick sensational propaganda write-ups, such as found on some ... websites. The [website] is a long hard slog to the real truth.” - Malcolm Bush

I mean what's the problem? They don't editorialize like some blogs. It's just dry facts and where they came from so you can check them out for yourself and draw your own conclusions. I mean if you don't like this you must really not like Wikipedia ( and if memory serves correctly you've used that as support at one time or another )!

I know you'll try make up something so this should be good!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #210 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Oh my god! What could they be doing that you are so " Speechless " you can't point it out to us other than vague claims?

What is it that you don't like? The facts that they list ( because they don't draw conclusions )? And there are references for everything so you'd probably have a good time refuting them. So I'm guessing it's just that those facts exist.

What a crock!

Maybe it's this part that you don't like : http://www.historycommons.org/aboutsite.jsp since it doesn't draw conclusions either. Here's what one of their readers had to say :

I mean what's the problem? They don't editorialize like some blogs. It's just dry facts and where they came from so you can check them out for yourself and draw your own conclusions. I mean if you don't like this you must really not like Wikipedia ( and if memory serves correctly you've used that as support at one time or another )!

I know you'll try make up something so this should be good!

jimmac, let me spell it out for you: The site has a predetermined point of view, whether or not it allows editorializing. It's decidedly anti-establishment and anti-military overall. It attracts members with similar views:

Quote:
The History Commons website is an experiment in open-content civic journalism. It provides a space for people to conduct grassroots-level investigations on any issue, providing the public with a useful tool to conduct oversight of government and private sector entities. It is collaborative and thus allows individuals to build upon the work of others. Each investigation is organized as a project, which is made up of at least one timeline.

Who do you think these people are, members of CPAC? They are people that are predisposed to certain viewpoints. Yes, they use facts without editorializing. That doesn't mean the website is objective or that it can be relied on for "proof."

For examples, let's look at some of the "headlines" so to speak:

Quote:
- Air Force Loses Control of Drone over Afghanistan, Shoots It Down, September 2009, posted by KJF
1/3 - Libby Interviewed by FBI Concerning Plame Wilson Leak, October 14, 2003, posted by blackmax
1/3 - White House Press Secretary Prepares for FBI Questioning in Leak Investigation, Agrees to Allow White House Lawyer to be Present during Interview, October 10, 2003, posted by blackmax
1/3 - Bush: Identity of Administration Leaker May Never Be Known, October 7, 2003, posted by blackmax
1/3 - Libby Meets with Cheneys Chief Lawyer Immediately after Meeting with Reporter, July 8, 2003, posted by blackmax
1/3 - Conservative Faux Journalist Interviews Wilson, Reveals Knowledge of Classified Memos, October 28, 2003, posted by blackmax
1/3 - Rove Tells News Anchor that Plame Wilson Is Fair Game, July 21, 2003, posted by blackmax
1/3 - Beck: Obama a Racist with a Deep-Seated Hatred of White People, July 28-29, 2009, posted by blackmax
1/3 - Reports Show Seven Republicans Supported End-of-Life Care before Denouncing Death Panels, August 12-13, 2009, posted by blackmax

12/31 - Bush Assures Press Secretary that Rove Not Involved in Plame Wilson Leak, September 29, 2003, posted by blackmax
12/31 - Barbara Olson Said to Call from Flight 77, but Account Is Full of Contradictions, (9:20 a.m.) September 11, 2001, posted by newmex
12/30 - Operation Desert Fox Hammers Iraqi Targets in Retaliation for Iraqs Refusal to Cooperate with UN Inspectors, December 16-19, 1998, posted by blackmax

I mean really...you can't look at that and conclude it's objective and balanced. You found the site and like it for a reason...because many of the "citizen journalists" share your views.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #211 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

jimmac, let me spell it out for you: The site has a predetermined point of view, whether or not it allows editorializing. It's decidedly anti-establishment and anti-military overall. It attracts members with similar views:



Who do you think these people are, members of CPAC? They are people that are predisposed to certain viewpoints. Yes, they use facts without editorializing. That doesn't mean the website is objective or that it can be relied on for "proof."

For examples, let's look at some of the "headlines" so to speak:



I mean really...you can't look at that and conclude it's objective and balanced. You found the site and like it for a reason...because many of the "citizen journalists" share your views.

Are the facts in error or have they been tailored in any way?

There's references. Did you check them out?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #212 of 419
jimmac, if a collection of facts were good enough for you, then you would never throw out a Fox *News* link. However, delusions of grandeur (liberalism) prevent you from forming cohesive arguments.
post #213 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

jimmac, if a collection of facts were good enough for you, then you would never throw out a Fox *News* link. However, delusions of grandeur (liberalism) prevent you from forming cohesive arguments.

Yes but you see there has been a precedent set for FOX News being wrong and tailoring the news to fit a conservative viewpoint. No such general accusation exists for the website I quoted from. Also they're just facts. There's no editorializing by the website regarding these facts. They really occured. The headlines really occured. FOX also editorializes on their broadcast and websites. Totally different format.

Facts are facts. Not much you can do with them. Except draw your own conclusion.

I can understand how someone with a conservative viewpoint or a supporter of Bush wouldn't like them but there they are.

It would be different if this website had an editorial section or even a forum. They don't.

Quote:
However, delusions of grandeur (liberalism)

And they call me partisan!

So no. Your argument isn't relevant.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #214 of 419
Some more input on HistoryCommons:

I have no opinion on History Commons itself and so went to read up on it as there was a small debate going.

A Wikipedia Perspective...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_Commons

And from their own webpage...

Quote:
Who creates the content?

Anyone who registers on the website and becomes a member of a timeline project can submit content. Membership is free. Once a user becomes a member, s/he can edit existing event summaries by clicking the edit link that is next to that event (the user must be logged in to see the edit link). In addition to editing existing events, users can also add new ones to the database. Registered users who add content are called contributors. Since the project is still beta, and since we do not have enough editors at this time, membership is restricted to a relatively small group of users.

Good idea, but it is not fully baked yet. Like a Wiki site but for news and such. However, with the limited membership and the beta status you are more likely to have a slanted view of what facts make it on to the site. Is this actually the case, I cannot say right now. But it is much likely until the site is fully open and in release form.

But who is behind this?

Quote:
What is the History Commons website?

The History Commons website is run by the Center for Grassroots Oversight ("CGO"), an organization that is fiscally sponsored by The Global Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. CGO was incorporated as a public benefit corporation in late 2006, and is currently applying for its own 501(c)3 status.

And Who is The Global Center?
International Center for Global Communications Foundation, inc

http://www.globalvision.org/fiscal/mstatement.html

Started by whom?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_O%...28filmmaker%29

All of these links should give you a better idea of who started history commons and what may be the impetus behind it. Looking at his filmography might help to see what he is trying to achieve...

Quote:
Filmography

2009: Executive Producer Barack Obama: Peoples President, Independent Documentary

2008: Executive Producer Viva Madiba, Independent Documentary

2007: Executive Producer Frontrunner, Independent Documentary

2006: Executive Producer 9/11: Press for Truth, Independent Documentary

2006: Executive-in-Charge-of-Production In Debt We Trust, Independent Documentary

2005: Executive Producer WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception, Independent Documentary

2003: Co-Director, Co-Producer, Writer "The Hole in the Wall," Independent Documentary

2001: Co-Director, Co-Producer, Writer "Voices of the Poor," Independent Documentary

2000: Co-Director, Executive Producer "Hear Our Voices: The Poor on Poverty," Global Links TV Documentary

2000: Executive Producer "Falun Gong's Challenge to China," Independent Documentary

1999: Director, Writer "Richard Speck: Born To Raise Hell," Court TV Documentary

1999: Story Developer "The Trial of the Chicago 8," Court TV Documentary

1999: Executive Producer, Writer "Globalization and Human Rights," PBS Documentary

1998: Director, Producer, Writer "China: Change and Challenge," Global Links TV Documentary

1996: Producer, Writer "Yellow Wasps: Anatomy Of a War Crime," Independent Documentary

1994: Executive Producer, Writer "Countdown to Freedom," Independent Documentary

1993: Director, Producer, Writer "The Arming of Saudi Arabia," PBS Frontline Documentary

1992: Director, Producer, Writer "BCCI: The Bank of Crooks and Criminals," PBS Frontline Documentary

1992: Director, Producer, Writer "The Resurrection of Reverend Moon," PBS Frontline Documentary

1992: Executive Producer "Beyond JFK: The Question of Conspiracy," Warner Bros. Documentary

1991: Senior Producer Mandela in America, Time-Warner Documentary

1990: Executive Producer "Nelson Mandela: Free At Last," PBS Documentary

1990: Producer, Writer "No Place Like Home," WCVB-TV Documentary

1986: Producer, Writer "Mafia On Trial," WCVB-TV Documentary

1985: Producer, Writer "No Safe Asylum," WCVB-TV Documentary
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #215 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Are the facts in error or have they been tailored in any way?

There's references. Did you check them out?


Those points are really not relevant. They could present the facts without "tailoring" them and still have an overall point of view.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume you're correct---that the facts are presented with no mistakes and no alterations. The site still clearly attracts those with certain viewpoints. The overall tone (as exemplified by the headlines) is extremely anti-military, anti-government and anti-conservative.

I'm not saying it's a bad site or that it has no value. I'm just saying that it's not an example of you offering support for your arguments in general. I do think it could be used that way, though. For example, if someone was debating a timeline with you, you could cite the ones it contains in support of your point. I haven't seen you do that, but you could.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #216 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes but you see there has been a precedent set for FOX News being wrong and tailoring the news to fit a conservative viewpoint.

That's somewhat a matter of interpretation. Have they been wrong in the past? Yes. Has CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS et al? Absolutely, and probably far more than Fox. Does the network present an overall conservative tone? Yes. Do the aforementioned networks have a liberal slant? Of course.

Quote:


No such general accusation exists for the website I quoted from. Also they're just facts. There's no editorializing by the website regarding these facts. They really occured. The headlines really occured. FOX also editorializes on their broadcast and websites. Totally different format.

Facts are facts. Not much you can do with them. Except draw your own conclusion.

I can understand how someone with a conservative viewpoint or a supporter of Bush wouldn't like them but there they are.

It would be different if this website had an editorial section or even a forum. They don't.



And they call me partisan!

So no. Your argument isn't relevant.


I'm afraid the notion "as long as the facts are true, nothing else matters" is not correct. Facts can be cherry picked, presented in a certain way, etc. Other facts that would balance the argument can be ignored. I don't see anything on that site about how revenue to the federal government increased after the Bush tax cuts, for example.

Here, look at the most viewed timelines:

Complete 911 Timeline
Civil Liberties
Decision to Invade Iraq
Prisoner Abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan
History of US Interventions
Iraq Under US Occupation
A. Q. Khan's Nuclear Network
Hurricane Katrina
Alleged False Flag Attacks
US Health Care



See anything there that's critical of Obama? See anything positive for Bush? No. That's because, as I said, the site's audience has a viewpoint similar to yours. The content creators clearly do as well.

By the way, read some of Iraq War timeline. Tell me if you see anything complimentary of our government's handling of either Gulf War. It's an anti-war, conspiracy theory site jimmac. Just read it.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #217 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Those points are really not relevant. They could present the facts without "tailoring" them and still have an overall point of view.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume you're correct---that the facts are presented with no mistakes and no alterations. The site still clearly attracts those with certain viewpoints. The overall tone (as exemplified by the headlines) is extremely anti-military, anti-government and anti-conservative.

I'm not saying it's a bad site or that it has no value. I'm just saying that it's not an example of you offering support for your arguments in general. I do think it could be used that way, though. For example, if someone was debating a timeline with you, you could cite the ones it contains in support of your point. I haven't seen you do that, but you could.

In other words you've got nothing. The facts are quoted directly. They have references directly back to their original source. You can't use thopse kind of resposes against that kind of argument. You see it really doesn't matter what the site thinks ( even though there's very little to show that ) the facts remain.

It's not a blog or a site delivering the news. It's a repository of facts.

Quote:
The overall tone (as exemplified by the headlines) is extremely anti-military, anti-government and anti-conservative.

Some headlines are yes but they didn't come from the site. They're just presented there.

What tone? They're facts from a second source. That doesn't invalidate them! Jesus!

I ask again SDW are the facts in error?

Did they or did they not happen?

Other than something from personal opinion or partisanship leave anything relevant out?

Otherwise it's your argument that's irrelevant. It's just an attempt by you to wiggle out of this. Unsuccessful I might add.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #218 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That's somewhat a matter of interpretation. Have they been wrong in the past? Yes. Has CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS et al? Absolutely, and probably far more than Fox. Does the network present an overall conservative tone? Yes. Do the aforementioned networks have a liberal slant? Of course.




I'm afraid the notion "as long as the facts are true, nothing else matters" is not correct. Facts can be cherry picked, presented in a certain way, etc. Other facts that would balance the argument can be ignored. I don't see anything on that site about how revenue to the federal government increased after the Bush tax cuts, for example.

Here, look at the most viewed timelines:

Complete 911 Timeline
Civil Liberties
Decision to Invade Iraq
Prisoner Abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan
History of US Interventions
Iraq Under US Occupation
A. Q. Khan's Nuclear Network
Hurricane Katrina
Alleged False Flag Attacks
US Health Care



See anything there that's critical of Obama? See anything positive for Bush? No. That's because, as I said, the site's audience has a viewpoint similar to yours. The content creators clearly do as well.

By the way, read some of Iraq War timeline. Tell me if you see anything complimentary of our government's handling of either Gulf War. It's an anti-war, conspiracy theory site jimmac. Just read it.

Quote:
I'm afraid the notion "as long as the facts are true, nothing else matters

That's not an accurate quote. Closer to that might have been " If the facts are true the opinion of the site is not the main point. " Now if they left out large amounts of facts that would lead you to a different conclusion ( not opinion SDW facts ) but we know that's not true don't we.

If the facts show that Bush was a crappy president ( which most people in the country believe ) then well if you're a Bush supporter that's unfortunate.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #219 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Some more input on HistoryCommons:

I have no opinion on History Commons itself and so went to read up on it as there was a small debate going.

A Wikipedia Perspective...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_Commons

And from their own webpage...



Good idea, but it is not fully baked yet. Like a Wiki site but for news and such. However, with the limited membership and the beta status you are more likely to have a slanted view of what facts make it on to the site. Is this actually the case, I cannot say right now. But it is much likely until the site is fully open and in release form.

But who is behind this?



And Who is The Global Center?
International Center for Global Communications Foundation, inc

http://www.globalvision.org/fiscal/mstatement.html

Started by whom?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rory_O%...28filmmaker%29

All of these links should give you a better idea of who started history commons and what may be the impetus behind it. Looking at his filmography might help to see what he is trying to achieve...

Here's their about page :

Quote:
About this Site
What is the History Commons website?
The History Commons website is run by the Center for Grassroots Oversight ("CGO"), an organization that is fiscally sponsored by The Global Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. CGO was incorporated as a public benefit corporation in late 2006, and is currently applying for its own 501(c)3 status.

Can you briefly describe the website?
The website is a tool for open-content participatory journalism. It allows people to investigate important issues by providing a space where people can collaborate on the documentation of past and current events, as well as the entities associated with those events. The website can be used to investigate topics at the local, regional, or global level. The data is displayed on the website in the form of dynamic timelines and entity profiles, and is exportable into XML so it can be shared with others for non-commercial purposes.

What kind of information is available on this website?
Information about specific events. There are currently 15,468 events profiled in our database. Visitors can view these events by searching the database, or by browsing through timelines.
Information about specific entities. More than 5,000 entities are currently in the database. They include individuals, organizations, businesses, etc. For each entity there is an entity profile page which includes (1) information about the entity; (2) links to related entities; and (3) a chronology of all events in which the entity was an active participant. Visitors can view entity profiles by searching the database, or by clicking on one of the entity links at the bottom of an event.
Who creates the content?
Anyone who registers on the website and becomes a member of a timeline project can submit content. Membership is free. Once a user becomes a member, s/he can edit existing event summaries by clicking the edit link that is next to that event (the user must be logged in to see the edit link). In addition to editing existing events, users can also add new ones to the database. Registered users who add content are called “contributors.” Since the project is still beta, and since we do not have enough editors at this time, membership is restricted to a relatively small group of users.

Who edits the content?
Any qualified individual—an experienced contributor, professional editor, academic, journalist, graduate student, etc.—can become a content editor. Content editors, like all users, are volunteers. They verify the accuracy of entries submitted by contributors. Content editors may reject, approve, or edit and approve, submissions. After approving an entry, the entry is then copy edited.

Who copy edits?
Volunteers.

What is the purpose and significance of this website?
To provide a means for members of civil society to monitor the activities of powerful entities, such as governments, large corporations, and wealthy and influential individuals. In this capacity, the website should be regarded as an IT toolset that enables members of the public to operate as a sort of people’s intelligence agency. To initiate an investigation of a certain issue, entity, or event, a user first creates a timeline project. The user then becomes the project manager of that project and begins adding events, entities, and relationships. The data is displayed as a chronology. Project managers can define an unlimited number of category sets and categories that s/he can use to classify the events. This gives the data some structure and makes it more readable for visitors.
To further blur the line between readers and journalists. This website, like blogs and other applications that allow self-publishing, allows Big Media’s former audience to assume the roles of content creators, editors, and publishers.
To increase the efficiency of information production. This project is premised on the notion that collaboration in a networked “open-content” environment can greatly improve the efficiency and quality of information production in the public sphere as it allows contributors to build upon and improve the work of others in real time as part of a global community. This arrangement allows the production of information to take place at a level of efficiency comparable—if not superior—to that of the capital-intensive efforts of hierarchically structured private enterprises. The Center believes this improved efficiency is socially significant because products resulting from this system of production are inherently more democratic than those of the private sector since they are created by a much broader spectrum of interests and perspectives.
To increase the efficiency of information acquisition. Another objective of the Center is to increase the efficiency of research by reducing the tendency for researchers to duplicate the efforts of others. All too often, researchers—largely because of a fragmented historical record—needlessly spend a significant amount of time and energy bringing material together and identifying relationships, even though this work may have already been done by someone else. By collecting a mass of extensively cited data, this website should reduce the frequency of duplicated efforts.
To reduce the fragmentation of the historical record. This project seeks to help reduce the fragmentation of the historical record by connecting events whose temporal and spatial relationships are often obscured by a mass of contradicting and disconnected literature, the biases of the media, and the tendency for important past events to be relegated to the annals of forgotten history. By reducing the fragmentation of the historical record, this project hopes to reduce the amount of time it takes for the public to acquire a full and coherent picture of an event or issue.
To create a “history commons.” All the data in the History Commons database will be exportable into XML so it can be used by other individuals and groups for non-commercial purposes. As such the historical data collected by contributors and stored in the History Commons database will serve as a sort of commons for historical data.
I would like to learn more about open-content civic journalism. Can you refer me to any other sites?
Wikipedia: Wikipedia is a copyleft encyclopedia that is collaboratively developed using wiki software. Wikipedia is managed and operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. In addition to standard encyclopedic knowledge, Wikipedia includes information more often associated with almanacs and gazetteers, as well as coverage of current events. The content of Wikipedia is entirely created by its users. No single person owns the content; no article is ever finished. The license known as the GFDL is intended to ensure that everyone who can accept that license has the right to use and improve the article.
OhmyNews: OhmyNews is a South Korean collaborative media outlet run by professional journalists with the help of 26,000 citizen journalists.It has a readership of over 2 million people and publishes about 200 stories a day. Its impact has been profound, being credited by many with helping to elect South Korea's new progressive president, Roh Moo-hyun.
BackFence: “Backfence.com is a new way to find out what's going on in the world closest and most important to you: Your neighborhood. And the information is written by the people who know your neighborhood best: You and your neighbors.”

Center for the Public Domain: The Center for the Public Domain is a philanthropic foundation based in Durham, North Carolina, that seeks to call attention to the importance of the public domain and spur effective, practical solutions and responses. Its work is animated by the conviction that new legal regimes, social institutions and transparent technologies must be created to fortify the information commons. The Center for the Public Domain is enthusiastically committed to this mission—and to the use of innovative philanthropy and catalytic leadership to secure the future of the public domain.

Creative Commons: Creative Commons uses private rights to create public goods: creative works set free for certain uses. Like the free software and open-source movements, Creative Commons' goals are historycommons and community-minded, but our means are voluntary and libertarian. The organization works to offer creators a best-of-both-worlds way to protect their works while encouraging certain uses of them—or declare “some rights reserved.” Thus, a single goal unites Creative Commons' current and future projects: to build a layer of reasonable, flexible copyright in the face of increasingly restrictive default rules.

Truth and Politics: TruthAndPolitics.org is envisioned as a clearinghouse for knowledge, an attempt to achieve economies of scale in the dissemination and organization of information, both current and historical, relevant to politics and public policy. The project’s primary long-term goal is to help individuals access the current sphere of knowledge more efficiently and avoid needless duplication of effort.

Where can I read more about civic journalism?
We the Media: Grassroots journalism by the people for the people by Dan Gillmor.
We Media. A report discussing participatory journalism and New Media
What people are saying about the History Commons project“Absolutely amazing site. Genius. The mind boggles at the amount of work you must have put into it.” - Dean Cavanagh, UK

“This site is so brilliant. Thank you for doing it!” - Suzanne DeBolt

“I'd just like to say thank you. I kept myself quite late one night dreaming of a grand project like this, and you've done it. Brilliant. I'm glad there are people like yourselves out there.” - Will Swanson

“Your organization and your Web site truly realize the potential of the Internet for collaborative study, research, and understanding. This is one of the best, if not the best, resource on the Web for detailed, unbiased, and unfiltered analysis of recent events.” - Peter Orvetti

“… absolutely brilliant website, of great value to all! Splendid work.” - Nigel

“I just want to let all of you know what an absolutely amazing website History Commons is. It has been the most informative site I have come across and I tell EVERYONE about it. I can not even begin to imagine the time and effort put into making this site what it is, and it amazes me how much it has grown over the past year (after finding it while doing research for an English paper for college.) Keep up the outstanding work, I can speak for many people when I say it is appreciated and making a difference.” - Amanda Rae

“You've done a yeoman's job and your research is important history. Really important. REALLY important. … You are verifying sources and events in a way that none of the majors have done, and which The Grey Lady (NYT) heretofore prides itself as the sole source of. Your work puts the NYT to shame.” - Janie Angus

“…yours is the very best site I have found. And you gave me hope when it was hard to come by.” - Kathryn Welch, Blacksburg, VA

“I consider your project as one of the most important web-based projects aimed at combating what I call political amnesia.” - Morten Nielsen

“I have to tell you that your information is devastating in its completeness and I have already in about the first 15 minutes of reading the time line learned about Joe T. I didn't know a damn thing about this character and the role he played in the propaganda of wmd. In short I want to applaud all that you've created .” - Debs Bleicher

“Your site is an incomparable resource tool on an important array of contemporary US policies. It is unique, irreplaceable, and of inestimable value.” - Michael B. Green, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist, Qualified Medical Examiner, Former Professor of Philosophy UT Austin.

“... reports prepared by [the History Commons] team were helpful in my work as a freelance political writer. I am an author of two published books and hundreds of articles in the best of Polish language political magazines.” - Henryk A. Kowalczyk

“I spend most of all of my available time researching material from the [History Commons website]. ... I have found that the detailed and accurate information from the [website] can allow a user to build a comprehensive overview of things. There are no quick sensational propaganda write-ups, such as found on some ... websites. The [website] is a long hard slog to the real truth.” - Malcolm Bush

But it wouldn't matter who they were. They're not anymore " Official " than Wikipedia. Anyone can start a website look at trumptman and SDW! What really counts is what they present there. Now on the one hand we have blogs like their site that are full of personal opinion. Then we have sites that just list facts and let you draw your own conclusion. They don't have a business contact because they aren't there for profit.

I ask again! Are any of the facts there in error?

Are ther large gaps in what they present that would put a different spin on things ( if so you'll be asked to list them as fact with references )?

From your Wikipedia source :

Quote:
Similarly to Wikipedia, the History Commons is a database that the public can edit and add content to. Some important differences are that the ability to do so is limited to registered users, and that entries/edits go through a peer-review process before being published. According to a History Commons "Conceptual Summary", "There are three steps to the review process. After an entry is submitted, it is reviewed for content to ensure that it is well-written and well-sourced. Sources are checked to ensure that what is in the entry accurately reflects the source material without resorting to plagiarism. An entry approved for content is then submitted for copyediting, using the HC style manual as a guide. If the event is rejected during the first step, it is sent back to the user, who reads over the comments and then resubmits the entry. If it is approved, another user, who is in charge of managing the user-defined timeline that the event was submitted to, then makes a decision whether or not the verified event should be added to the timeline. Each event is thoroughly reviewed for accuracy and proper grammar and spelling." [6]

It really doesn't sound too damning does it?

The difference between these websites is that Wikipedia writes about things. The other just lists facts. If I'm not mistaken many ( including SDW ) here have referenced information from Wikipedia ( a similar site ) as support for their arguments.

Originally I just went looking for facts and found this site. If I'd found that the facts were in error or that they had left out large portions of them I wouldn't haver used them. That just wasn't the case.

It would be one thing if the facts were wrong wouldn't it?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #220 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

In other words you've got nothing. The facts are quoted directly. They have references directly back to their original source. You can't use thopse kind of resposes against that kind of argument. You see it really doesn't matter what the site thinks ( even though there's very little to show that ) the facts remain.

It's not a blog or a site delivering the news. It's a repository of facts.

I haven't claimed that the information is not factual.


Quote:

Some headlines are yes but they didn't come from the site. They're just presented there.

That is the point. It would be like me creating a site that listed headlines only critical of Obama, then claiming it was balanced news.

Quote:

What tone? They're facts! Jesus!

The tone comes from the content of the headlines and stories. They are all critical of military, government, "occupation," etc. The tone might be different if the headlines were more diverse.

Quote:

I ask again SDW are the facts in error?

That would require more time than either of us have. As far as I can tell, no.

Quote:

Did they or did they not happen?

Other than something from personal opinion or partisanship leave anything relevant out?

Yes, a lot has been left out. That is the point. There is no opposing view presented.

Quote:

Otherwise it's your argument that's irrelevant. It's just an attempt by you to wiggle out of this. Unsuccessful I might add.

jimmac, you are claiming that a list of facts--no matter what they are--cannot be indicative of a viewpoint. Correct? So, I can post this:

Fact 1: Obama promised transparency in government. We now have closed door meetings on the final healthcare bill.

Fact 2: Obama promised that anyone making less than $250,000 a year would not see their taxes go up a single dime. Cigarette taxes have increased. Healthcare will levy a tax, not to mention fines for the uninsured.

Fact 3: Obama/Biden promised that if the stimulus bill passed, unemployment would peak at 8%. It's now at 10%.

Fact 4: The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13 (see trends).

Fact 5: Republican candidates now lead Democrats by five points in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.
The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 43% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.



Let's say that comprised a list of headlines on a webpage called "politicalcommons.org." I then invite users to post their own, factual headlines/stories. Would you say my site is balanced and does not present a point of view? Of course you wouldn't. Facts are not automatically impartial.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #221 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I haven't claimed that the information is not factual.




That is the point. It would be like me creating a site that listed headlines only critical of Obama, then claiming it was balanced news.



The tone comes from the content of the headlines and stories. They are all critical of military, government, "occupation," etc. The tone might be different if the headlines were more diverse.



That would require more time than either of us have. As far as I can tell, no.



Yes, a lot has been left out. That is the point. There is no opposing view presented.



jimmac, you are claiming that a list of facts--no matter what they are--cannot be indicative of a viewpoint. Correct? So, I can post this:

Fact 1: Obama promised transparency in government. We now have closed door meetings on the final healthcare bill.

Fact 2: Obama promised that anyone making less than $250,000 a year would not see their taxes go up a single dime. Cigarette taxes have increased. Healthcare will levy a tax, not to mention fines for the uninsured.

Fact 3: Obama/Biden promised that if the stimulus bill passed, unemployment would peak at 8%. It's now at 10%.

Fact 4: The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -13 (see trends).

Fact 5: Republican candidates now lead Democrats by five points in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.
The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 43% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 38% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.



Let's say that comprised a list of headlines on a webpage called "politicalcommons.org." I then invite users to post their own, factual headlines/stories. Would you say my site is balanced and does not present a point of view? Of course you wouldn't. Facts are not automatically impartial.

Let me ask again are there large groups of facts left out? Facts ( not opinion ) that would lead you to a different conclusion? If so list them complete with references. You would ask this much of me.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #222 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Here's their about page :



But it wouldn't matter who they were. They're not anymore " Official " than Wikipedia. Anyone can start a website look at trumptman and SDW! What really counts is what they present there. Now on the one hand we have blogs like their site that are full of personal opinion. Then we have sites that just list facts and let you draw your own conclusion. They don't have a business contact because they aren't there for profit.

I ask again! Are any of the facts there in error?

Are ther large gaps in what they present that would put a different spin on things ( if so you'll be asked to list them as fact with references )?

From your Wikipedia source :



It really doesn't sound too damning does it?

The difference between these websites is that Wikipedia writes about things. The other just lists facts. If I'm not mistaken many ( including SDW ) here have referenced information from Wikipedia ( a similar site ) as support for their arguments.

Originally I just went looking for facts and found this site. If I'd found that the facts were in error or that they had left out large portions of them I wouldn't haver used them. That just wasn't the case.

It would be one thing if the facts were wrong wouldn't it?

Jimmac, I read and linked to all that information so a reposting of the entire contents is really not necessary. My only point was to present as much information about the site as possible to make it easier to come to a conclusion about what the site may be about.

Have fun stormin' the castle.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #223 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Let me ask again are there large groups of facts left out? Facts ( not opinion ) that would lead you to a different conclusion? If so list them complete with references. You would ask this much of me.


I don't think you even read what is posted. I really don't. I just said there were facts left out. Those include: any facts that would paint conservatives, the military (etc) in a good light. Also left out are facts that would paint Democrats, Obama and the Left in general in a bad light. Their absence is right in front of you.

And could you consider responding to my example above?

By the way, asking me to "post them, with references" is disingenuous, and you know it. The category is so large that there is no way someone could do that. It literally encompasses ANY fact that would fit into categories I mentioned in my first paragraph of this post. I already listed a few possible (and specific examples,) which were more than adequate to show that there were no opposing views.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #224 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't think you even read what is posted. I really don't. I just said there were facts left out. Those include: any facts that would paint conservatives, the military (etc) in a good light. Also left out are facts that would paint Democrats, Obama and the Left in general in a bad light. Their absence is right in front of you.

And could you consider responding to my example above?

By the way, asking me to "post them, with references" is disingenuous, and you know it. The category is so large that there is no way someone could do that. It literally encompasses ANY fact that would fit into categories I mentioned in my first paragraph of this post. I already listed a few possible (and specific examples,) which were more than adequate to show that there were no opposing views.

Quote:
By the way, asking me to "post them, with references" is disingenuous,

Why? I happen to find this site with all these facts in one place. Perhaps you could do the same.

Quote:
I don't think you even read what is posted. I really don't. I just said there were facts left out. Those include: any facts that would paint conservatives, the military (etc) in a good light

I believe this all came about because of ( back in 07' ) the question of WMD and what the advisors were saying shortly before the war. The references on the website I linked to pretty much say that they were telling Bush " There's nothing there to find " hence no real justification for the invasion. Perhaps you could start from that angle.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #225 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Why? I happen to find this site with all these facts in one place. Perhaps you could do the same.

You found a site with many facts...that is true. It's just a site that has a clear point of view based on its content. Why should I have to find a comparable web site? I'm not saying your site is totally invalid. It's simply not impartial. You've claimed otherwise numerous times.

Quote:

I believe this all came about because of ( back in 07' ) the question of WMD and what the advisors were saying shortly before the war. The references on the website I linked to pretty much say that they were telling Bush " There's nothing there to find " hence no real justification for the invasion. Perhaps you could start from that angle.

See, there is the problem. You have a site that takes what certain "advisors" were saying. It then presents many facts--all of which are leading to a pre-determined conclusion. In this case, the conclusion is that President Bush knew there were no WMDs before invading. The facts themselves are not the problem...it's that they are presented with a goal in mind. Continuing your example: Did you see any headlines that indicated Bush was told there was no question Iraq had WMDs? Is there any mention of the Director of the CIA telling Bush the case that Saddam had WMDs was a "slam dunk." No. There is only information that fits the overall viewpoint the site expresses.

Let me post a collection of timelines again. Read through them and tell me if you see even one that is complimentary of Bush and/or critical of Obama. Find one that is pro-military and pro-Iraq/Afghanistan war.

List of timelines:

Quote:
Events Leading Up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, managed by Derek, blackmax.
Iraq Under US Occupation, managed by AJB, blackmax.
War in Afghanistan, managed by blackmax, Rye.
US Confrontation with Iran, managed by blackmax.
Iran-Contra and Arms-for-Hostages Scandals, managed by blackmax.
Complete 911 Timeline, managed by matt, Paul, KJF, blackmax.
Prisoner Abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan and Elsewhere, managed by Derek, KJF, blackmax.
2001 Anthrax Attacks, managed by Paul, KJF, paxvector.
Alleged Use of False Flag Attacks by Intelligence Agencies, managed by KJF, blackmax.
Global Financial and Economic Crisis 2007-2009, managed by KJF, blackmax, 99PercentPure.
Neoliberalism and Globalization, managed by AJB, blackmax.
Loss of US Civil Liberties, managed by Paul, KJF, PDevlinBuckley, blackmax.
Domestic Propaganda, Military Analysts, and the US Media, managed by blackmax.
Neoconservative Influences on US Policies, managed by blackmax.
US Electoral Politics, managed by Derek, blackmax, KarenWehrstein.
Nixon, Ford, and Watergate, managed by blackmax.
US Health Care System, managed by kuhan, blackmax, KarenWehrstein.
Global Warming, managed by Derek, blackmax.
The Bush Administration's Environmental Record, managed by Derek, blackmax.
Genetic Engineering and the Privatization of Seeds, managed by Derek, blackmax.
Water Privatization, managed by Derek.
Environmental Impact of the 9/11 Attacks, managed by Derek.
Hurricane Katrina, managed by blackmax.
The Struggle for Kosovar Albanian Self-Determination, managed by blackmax, michael_pollock.
US International Relations, managed by blackmax.
History of US Interventions, managed by Derek, blackmax.
A. Q. Khan's Nuclear Network, managed by Paul, KJF.
2004 Ousting of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, managed by blackmax.
US Military, managed by Derek, blackmax.
Bush administration's treatment of US troops, managed by Derek.


From Iraq Timeline:

Quote:
Events Recently Added to the Iraq Under US Occupation timeline
12/30 - Bush: Iran Will Follow Iraqs Lead in Becoming Democracy, Late October 2003, posted by blackmax
12/30 - Cheney Misrepresents Iraqi Poll Numbers, September 14, 2003, posted by blackmax
12/30 - Bush Promises No More Troops to Iraq, September 11, 2003, posted by blackmax
12/30 - Zinni: Bush Administration Failed to Plan for Postwar Iraq, September 5, 2003, posted by blackmax
12/28 - Grim CIA Situation Report from Baghdad Paints Picture of Effective Insurgency, August 30, 2003, posted by blackmax

From Electoral Politics:

Quote:
12/26 - Former Ambassador Supports Kerry in Presidential Elections, October 1, 2003, posted by blackmax
11/2 - Media Gives Favorable Coverage to Inaugural Ceremonies, January 20, 2005, posted by blackmax
9/23 - Cheney Says Terrorists Threaten US with Nuclear Weapons; Ashcroft Says Hand of Providence Protects Bush-Led US from Attacks, October 19, 2004, posted by blackmax
9/21 - Threat to Suspend Elections Has No Basis in Law, Former White House Counsel Writes, July 26, 2004, posted by blackmax
8/6 - Fundamentalist Christian University President Exhorts Bush to Carry out Religious Mandate in Second Term, November 3, 2004, posted by blackmax
8/6 - Bush Intends to Spend His Political Capital, November 4, 2004, posted by blackmax
7/10 - Justice Departments Civil Rights Division Supports Jim Crow-Style Voting Law, 2005, posted by blackmax
5/30 - Bush Says He Would Have Done Everything to Prevent 9/11, If He Had Known Plot Involved Aircraft, March 25, 2004, posted by KJF
5/4 - Supreme Court Upholds Indiana Voter ID Law, April 28, 2008, posted by KarenWehrstein
5/4 - Department of Justice Turns up Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud in Five Years, April 12, 2007, posted by blackmax
4/19 - RNC Tells Media that ACORN Plans to Commit Identity Theft, October 2, 2008, posted by KarenWehrstein
4/18 - Fox Interviewee Claims ACORN at Heart of Subprime Mortgage Crisis, Fox Says ACORNs Actions Detrimental to Democracy, October 19, 2008, posted by KarenWehrstein
4/18 - FactCheck, Newsweek Examine ACORN Voter Fraud Allegations, October 18, 2008, posted by KarenWehrstein
4/18 - Fox News Claims Photo ID Would Have Prevented Voter Registration Fraud, May 2, 2008, posted by KarenWehrstein
4/5 - New Republican Chairman Has Plan to Market Party in More Hip-Hop Fashion to Appeal to Younger, Minority Voters, February 19, 2009, posted by blackmax


No person in his right mind would conclude this a balanced site, jimmac.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #226 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You found a site with many facts...that is true. It's just a site that has a clear point of view based on its content. Why should I have to find a comparable web site? I'm not saying your site is totally invalid. It's simply not impartial. You've claimed otherwise numerous times.



See, there is the problem. You have a site that takes what certain "advisors" were saying. It then presents many facts--all of which are leading to a pre-determined conclusion. In this case, the conclusion is that President Bush knew there were no WMDs before invading. The facts themselves are not the problem...it's that they are presented with a goal in mind. Continuing your example: Did you see any headlines that indicated Bush was told there was no question Iraq had WMDs? Is there any mention of the Director of the CIA telling Bush the case that Saddam had WMDs was a "slam dunk." No. There is only information that fits the overall viewpoint the site expresses.

Let me post a collection of timelines again. Read through them and tell me if you see even one that is complimentary of Bush and/or critical of Obama. Find one that is pro-military and pro-Iraq/Afghanistan war.

List of timelines:




From Iraq Timeline:



From Electoral Politics:




No person in his right mind would conclude this a balanced site, jimmac.

Quote:
See, there is the problem. You have a site that takes what certain "advisors" were saying. It then presents many facts--all of which are leading to a pre-determined conclusion. In this case, the conclusion is that President Bush knew there were no WMDs before invading. The facts themselves are not the problem...it's that they are presented with a goal in mind. Continuing your example: Did you see any headlines that indicated Bush was told there was no question Iraq had WMDs? Is there any mention of the Director of the CIA telling Bush the case that Saddam had WMDs was a "slam dunk." No. There is only information that fits the overall viewpoint the site expresses.

SDW,

Then why were the advisors there? It was there job. Bush chose to believe the intel that said what he wanted to hear. It's pretty bad when the experts you put in place say there's nothing there, Saddam says " There's nothing there ", and some in government were saying " We don't think there's anything there " he chose not to investigate further. And guess what? There was nothing there.

You'd have a case if there was.

And remember those things actually happen you can't dismiss them with a wave of your hand.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #227 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

jimmac, let me spell it out for you: The site has a predetermined point of view, whether or not it allows editorializing. It's decidedly anti-establishment and anti-military overall. It attracts members with similar views:

History has a decidedly anti-Bush point of view. That doesn't mean it's not fact. Deal with it and learn from it.
post #228 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

History has a decidedly anti-Bush point of view. That doesn't mean it's not fact. Deal with it and learn from it.

Growing up, the history I learned had a decidedly good view of Christopher Columbus. Nowadays, that is not so much the case anymore. It really depends on who is teaching the history as to whether the view of it is positive or negative. History in that regard can be slanted for or against any individual no matter how good or bad they were.

Also bear in mind, that with few exceptions, nobody is all bad or good from a historical position. If you are truly being objective in your history, there will always be positive things among the negative and vice-versa...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #229 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

SDW,

Then why were the advisors there?

Which advisers, where?

Quote:
It was there job. Bush chose to believe the intel that said what he wanted to hear.

You cannot support that. You just stated your opinion.

Quote:
It's pretty bad when the experts you put in place say there's nothing there, Saddam says " There's nothing there ", and some in government were saying " We don't think there's anything there " he chose not to investigate further. And guess what? There was nothing there.

The weapons inspectors were not put there to catch Saddam with a smoking gun. They were there to verify compliance and disarming. They were unable to do so and were not given full access. The overwhelming consensus of the intelligence services in this country (and of others) was that Saddam had weapons. This is beyond dispute.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #230 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

History has a decidedly anti-Bush point of view. That doesn't mean it's not fact. Deal with it and learn from it.


So points of view now equal "facts?" Man, this is getting more interesting all the time.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #231 of 419

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #232 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So points of view now equal "facts?" Man, this is getting more interesting all the time.

History has that view for a good reason. A reason your Bush colored glasses won't let you see.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #233 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post


Yes this would have been so much better!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #234 of 419
More news on the possible pendulum beginning to swing back towards the center of the Aisle...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100107/..._democrats2010

Seems that both Republicans and Democrats have people retiring but it is likely to be a net gain for the Republican party. Nothing too major, but it will likely be enough to prevent the Democrats from forcing their agenda like they are trying to do now. It will be interesting to see where this ends up after the elections are over...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #235 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes this would have been so much better!


I don't know, I never had any faith the McCain would cause any sort of "change" -- even he didn't promise as much.

From BusinessWeek Paul Volker interveiw:

Quote:
Quote:
You feel strongly that the financial system has gotten out of whack. Do you think the American political process is capable of fixing it?

The American political process is about as broken as the financial system. Therefore, one has to be a bit skeptical. Just to give you one little example, one unrelated to the financial crisis. Here we are on Dec. 29, almost a year after the Inauguration, and there is no Under Secretary of the Treasury. That should be an important position. How can we run a government in the middle of a financial crisis without doing the ordinary, garden-variety administrative work of filling the relevant agencies? The Treasury is an outstanding example of a broken system, but it's not the only one.

Quote:
Is part of the problem that Congress is slow in the process of approving?

Slow is too fast a word to describe what's going on. The Administration is one quarter over, and it hasn't manned the ramparts of government yet.

Quote:
So it's the Administration's problem? They haven't gotten their Executive Branch in place?

It's partly a reflection of the discord in government and extreme views on either side and fighting each other for every scrap of advantage.

Quote:
In interviews in the past you said that's why we needed to change the political process; that's why you thought that candidate Obama was the best choice for President.

True. But has he been able to do that at this point? It doesn't look that way. I think that's unfortunate. I wish the Administration would pay more attention to what's needed to improve the ordinary functioning of government. We can't even fight a war with our own people any more. We've got to hire Blackwater. I think people have lost confidence in government, they've lost trust in government, and it shows. This isn't a question just of this Administration. It's been kind of a steady, downhill path.

Quote:
Yes, but this Administration came in and said it would change. That was the mantra of the campaign. So what happened?

It shows you it's not that easy to change.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...995_page_2.htm

It's hopeless. I just read that BHO -- "Bush with more abortions" -- is going to tax health care premiums. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, and I've slept since then, but isn't that almost EXACTLY what he berated McCain for proposing?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #236 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

I don't know, I never had any faith the McCain would cause any sort of "change" -- even he didn't promise as much.

From BusinessWeek Paul Volker interveiw:



http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...995_page_2.htm

It's hopeless. I just read that BHO -- "Bush with more abortions" -- is going to tax health care premiums. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, and I've slept since then, but isn't that almost EXACTLY what he berated McCain for proposing?

http://www.factcheck.org/mccains_5000_promise.html
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politic...healthcare.cfm

But the Tour De Farce:
http://www.politicususa.com/en/Obama...e-taxes-mccain
Quote:
“And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase – not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. My opponent can’t make that pledge, and here’s why: for the first time in American history, he wants to tax your health benefits Apparently, Senator McCain doesn’t think it’s enough that your health premiums have doubled, he thinks you should have to pay taxes on them too. That’s a $3.6 trillion tax increase on middle class families. That will eventually leave tens of millions of you paying higher taxes. That’s his idea of change,” Obama said.

Apparently it was Obama's Idea of change as well! This is especially hypocritical given the health care plan and where it is now... Cadillac plans anyone?

One site actually speaks to this problem:

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.o...n_taxing_h.php
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #237 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

More news on the possible pendulum beginning to swing back towards the center of the Aisle...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100107/..._democrats2010

Seems that both Republicans and Democrats have people retiring but it is likely to be a net gain for the Republican party. Nothing too major, but it will likely be enough to prevent the Democrats from forcing their agenda like they are trying to do now. It will be interesting to see where this ends up after the elections are over...

Buried deep in the article:

Quote:
That said, the GOP has troubles of its own, with even more Republicans than Democrats leaving Congress and governors mansions instead of running again.

How's that pendulum swinging again?
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #238 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

History has that view for a good reason. A reason your Bush colored glasses won't let you see.

It really depends on who the "history" is being written by. Secondly, I was merely stating the points of view are not facts in themselves.



Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Buried deep in the article:



How's that pendulum swinging again?


It's swinging right--if you read any polling. And while there are GOP members retiring, my understanding is that they are in safe districts (though I don't have that data right in front of me). The reason its bigger news for dems is that many are in contested races with the national political environment becoming toxic for their party. It may become the polar opposite of 2006 and 2008, where some Republicans lost their seats because they were Republicans.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #239 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Buried deep in the article:



How's that pendulum swinging again?

That being right after:

Quote:
All told, the latest developments mean 2010 is sure to see a slew of competitive races, though it's unlikely at this point that Republicans will win enough seats to retake control of either the House or Senate. Democrats currently control the Senate 58-40, and the two independents also typically vote with the party. The House is now 256-178 for the Democrats with one vacancy.

Congress is expected to pass Obama's health care overhaul soon, but it will take years for that policy to be implemented and Democratic lawmakers' support will be crucial. Climate change legislation also hangs in the balance. With no re-election hanging over their heads, retiring Democratic lawmakers have little incentive to fall in behind the White House on its priorities.

This week's are only the latest Democratic retirement announcements, accompanied by several in the House and the recent defection of Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith to the GOP, in a dispiriting trend for a party that had been soaring after winning control of Congress and the White House in back-to-back elections. The losses could hamper candidate recruitment, activist enthusiasm, and grass-roots fundraising.

The general mood of the election appears to be going more the Republican direction which means the pendulum would be approaching the center. You have candidates switching parties to the Republicans while still in office, and a lot of news articles stating that they will be hotly contested and likely result in net gains to the Republican party. It may not be a landslide but time will tell how far it goes.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #240 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It really depends on who the "history" is being written by. Secondly, I was merely stating the points of view are not facts in themselves.

Republican history written by "History":
911
from surplus to 1.4 trillion deficit.
tax cuts during war time.
war budget not in national budget.
war spending OK but not healthcare.
US reputation destroyed.
social programs cut.
are against census.
gay and straight sex scandals abound.
birthers.
global warming deniers.
crumbling infra structure.
want to keep status quo.
voted against any and all social programs like Medicare and social security.
closed mental institutions (were most republicans should be under Reagan.)
misunderestimated everything.
for bank bailout but against stimulus.
sent tax refund checks we could not afford.
want to use the word terrorism more.
are against ending wars.
financial melt down.
housing bubble.
record trade deficits.
drill baby drill.
hand holding with Saudis.
"You lie".
2 wars.
Gitmo.
Terrorists released to Yemen.
Torture.
exposure of undercover agents.
no care for 911 rescuers.
60% 401k losses.
no job gains for 10 years.
patriot act.
wire tapping.
.....

Fantastic stuff to run on, it will especially bring a lot of young voters to the GOP. Dems should just give up and bow out of all the races.

Please name the crowning Republican achievement of the 21st century.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama: It's Still Bush's Fault